Predestination and Free Will

[Syne]

Personally, I think that any god's goal is accomplished upon the act of creation alone, even the continuous chain of creation through the progressive existences. Goals are usually postulated toward some end envisioned to have value. Where everything is intrinsic to a god, any such assignment of value is purely arbitrary. So I can only imagine a goal more akin to a pastime having value.

So no overall goal implied.

 

[kx000]

The goal is to achieve eternal love.

 

[Rav]

Just because a god's time rate is such that its moment corresponds to our whole timeline does not mean that our future is in the god's past, i.e. "already experienced". This is the erroneous assumption you keep making that is leading you astray. A much slower time rate means that even though our future may be a god's present that future does not need to happen prior to us experiencing. Such a god's moment is just so long that it naturally encompasses our future, but both time rates unfold simultaneously (hence my comment about nothing "yet to unfold").

Let's look at your earlier example of a photon. Sure, in some sense it sees history as a single moment (less than a moment in fact, since all of it's motion through spacetime is motion through space only). But a photon hasn't already arrived at it's final destination, even though it technically doesn't have to "wait" to get there. Our future is only ever a part of a photons present once we have already arrived at that future. I'm quite certain at this point that we are in agreement here.

But why use the phrase "our future is a god's present"? It's just like the phrase "our future is a photon's present". It implies that a god, or a photon, already has a present that includes our future. This implication is even clearer in light of the following additional factors:

1) when you used this phrase, you were talking about omnipresence as the mechanism by which the future is known by a god instead of omniscience
2) when you used this phrase, it was hot on the heels of an earlier discussion in this thread that involved the claim that God knows the future by virtue of having already experienced it
3) when you used this phrase, it was in a direct reply to the following statement: "There is certainly an abundance of theists however who claim that God's knowledge of future events is absolute, and that probability doesn't factor into the equation at all."

So from that moment on I assumed that you were in fact defending that notion. This contextualized our entire discussion for me.

Anyway, whatever. Since you're not actually arguing that God has already seen our future in an absolute sense, I guess we can proceed to wrap this up.

 

[Sarkus]

I believe he said "god having complete control". If that is not the gist of predestination then I do not know what is.

It is - but you have been arguing merely about whether a God that knows all is something that is incompatible with free-will... i.e. whether merely the existence of an omniscient God is incompatible.

Predestination goes far beyond merely knowing.
Predestination is the theological concept that everything is willed by God.
It is possible, afterall, for God to know everything, yet have no input into how/why it happens - i.e. a god that predestines everything will know everything, but a god that knows everything need not have predestined everything.

Any divine predestination explicitly necessitates some form of the divine. And the OP was definitely about divine predestination, so a god not inferring predestination does answer the OP.

How so, when you agree that the OP addresses divine predestination?
If I raise a thread asking about a car that is run on ethanol, and you discuss a car that is run on diesel... how is that answering the questions raised in the thread?

It seems you want to focus on the premise of determinism versus free will, as that is what it boils down to if you neglect all notions of a god.

I'm not looking to neglect notions of a god, and there are plenty of other threads on which to discuss determinism versus free-will. So no, this is not what I am looking to do.

The question is whether predestination - i.e. the concept that everything is willed by a god - is compatible with freewill or not.
You have seemingly equated predestination with omniscience.
But while predestination infers omniscience, omniscience does not infer predestination - and you have argued that it is possible for a god to be omniscient but not be incompatible with free-will - omniscience does not infer predestination: i.e. it is possible to know something without that thing be the result of one's will.

I am just trying to point out that you have seemingly drifted onto omniscience as the focus, yet that in itself is not the question at hand.

If god wills everything - then yes, he will know everything, but it also destroys all means of free-will. They are incompatible.
The only means I can see of them being compatible is for God to will the concept of free-will to exist, and either to limit that free-will to a mere illusion within those that hold it, or to relinquish his hold over what happens to those in which he has instilled free-will... even though he will still know all.

 

[universaldistress]

Sarkus: Suggestion: God is our freewill. God is everything, from how the universe was designed to every action that now happens; as in god's will has our freewill included within it. No conflict as god's will is always in sync with ours, from bottom up. It is a symbiosis where the freewill of all creatures is the will of god. The decisions are made by both at the same time as the two can't be split.

 

[Sarkus]

Universaldistress: Answer: Then either there is no free-will other than the illusion of it... as we have no chance of going against the will of god, even if one claims our will and god's are the same... or there is no predestination as god has not willed anything until we ourselves determine it - i.e. we are the willing entity, not god.

To suggest that decisions are made by both at the same time as they can't be split then it seems you are describing god as a redundant concept... a mere catchall for "everything"... and the term "god" does not add anything... and I would say that the term "predestination" would not apply in such a concept... there is no "pre..." in what you describe.

At least this is how I see the situation you are proposing, but perhaps I am missing something?

 

[universaldistress]

Universaldistress: Answer: Then either there is no free-will other than the illusion of it... as we have no chance of going against the will of god,

You are accepting my premise that the two freewills are combined but at the same time assuming they are not. That is the conflict here. If you accept that both freewills are combined, theoretically, then it makes sense.

even if one claims our will and god's are the same... or there is no predestination as god has not willed anything until we ourselves determine it - i.e. we are the willing entity, not god.

You are still trying to split the two. They are combined. Try to accept the premise. The very atoms in your body are maintained and orchestrated by such a god; this is so deeply seeded within us that our freewill is not affected. They are two designs (ours and god's) moving in the same direction. One can change one's mind all day long, that is the design god intends, absolutely. I see no conflict; just needs my premise to be accepted.

To suggest that decisions are made by both at the same time as they can't be split then it seems you are describing god as a redundant concept... a mere catchall for "everything"... and the term "god" does not add anything... and I would say that the term "predestination" would not apply in such a concept... there is no "pre..." in what you describe.

At least this is how I see the situation you are proposing, but perhaps I am missing something?

If the freewill of god and human is inextricably intertwined, as intertwined as god is with every atom in the universe then this also incorporates predestination too, as there is only one way it goes. We are still free to choose as we wish; we can only choose this or that or this, and that choice is the way it goes. So we are predestined to have freewill. Remember, in the end, we only make one choice at any given juncture/present. Only one choice, which is the choice that we make, moves us forward into our predestined/predetermined future. You could say the choice is made, but at the same time we still make it, because the design is so deep down to the most intricate level that it is all one.

I don't think this is a problematic concept. Maybe it is your will to not accept it . . . (joke)

You do make good points. God as a redundant concept is a POV approach. We aren't talking about a god that is related to say religious parameters directly. Whether you think the concept would be redundant or not wouldn't change the fact that this god is controlling all. You could say that issues like sin etc. would be redundant as god orchestrates all, and I would accept that the views which are presently pedalled about what god is interested in would be redundant. All this god would be interested in would be for life within our universe evolving to an omega-type point. But we still would have to do it ourselves, with god as an interwoven contributor.

Does this elucidate?

 

[universaldistress]

But of course the intertwining of freewills of god and human doesn't mean that god isn't just winging-it as we may also be just winging it, with predestination not included, if he so wished (to be ignorant and just react to what comes; don't humans do a combination of present based reaction and predetermination/future orchestration?). It could work either way because either way the god operates in the present as we do. He would, assumedly, have reasonable prescient powers as he is all, but not eternal prescience. All parties are free to change their minds at any point, as there is only one future (there may be infinite possible futures, but only one actual future that we move through and into.)

I don't think that absolute predestination is possible to orchestrate as the physical world such a god would abide in and be linked to is not capable of working within a neural type framework that would link such an eternal god's faculties together across eternity.

 

[Sarkus]

You are accepting my premise that the two freewills are comibined but at the same time assuming they are not. That is the conflict here. Accept that both freewills are combined, theoretically then it makes sense.
...
You are still trying to split the two. They are combined. Can't you accept this premise? The very atoms in your body are maintained and orchestrated by such a god; this is so deeply seeded within us that our freewill is not affected. They are two designs (ours and gods) moving in the same direction. You can change your mind all day long, that is the design god intends, absolutely. I see no conflict; just need to accept my premise.

I accept it - but I still don't agree with your conclusions from it.
Predestination is not merely following or having the same will as God, it is the inability to go against the will of god, whether we choose to or not, whether we have a combined will or not.
If it is not possible to, then we are predestined to follow the will of God - or at least predestined to go the same way as God in our choice.
And a shared will does not imply or mean predestination... otherwise predestination exists by the very truism that one can only choose do what one chooses to do... i.e. we provide our own predestination.

If the freewill of god and human is inextricably intertwined, as intertwined as god is with every atom in the universe then this also incorporates predestination too, as there is only one way it goes. We are still free to choose as we wish; we can only choose this or that or this, and that choice is the way it goes. So we are predestined to have freewill.

No, we would be predestined to have the illusion of free-will. But this raises the question of what one means by "free-will".

 

[universaldistress]

it is the inability to go against the will of god, whether we choose to or not

if you choose to kill, it is god and you combined. If you choose to not kill, it is the will of god and you combined.

If it is not possible to, then we are predestined to follow the will of God - or at least predestined to go the same way as God in our choice.

You are still separating. I don't think you are putting yourself into the correct frame to understand this. Assume that the freewill of god and the freewill of you is combined. You can choose whatever direction you want. There are enough people to get the job done that god wants done. If you rot in jail and don't procreate that is yours and gods choice COMBINED. Enough people will make the correct decisions with god, to get where we need to get to. The individual is of no importance in the scheme. We all are part of the game/wave of an evolving race.

And a shared will does not imply or mean predestination... otherwise predestination exists by the very truism that one can only choose do what one chooses to do... i.e. we provide our own predestination.

And this would happen with god. The (limited (to a godlike timeframe)) predestination of god working in sync with a limited human predestination.

No, we would be predestined to have the illusion of free-will. But this raises the question of what one means by "free-will".

I have to say that I don't agree. The predestination is, I agree, not a concrete as I previously stated (in post 127 and 128) more the discretion of the god and how he wishes to run it, lazily or with more exactitude. The "illusion" suggestion doesn't hold. We are not only individuals within the universe. There is a wave called mankind. It is in god's interest to have some individuals falling by the wayside, in the greater scheme. Freewill of the human isn't effected by the freewill of god because they are one and the same thing. You could say gods freewill is more complex because his predestination skills should be more developed but that doesn't change the fact such a god's freewill is indivisible from our own, we both make the choice that is best for us given: the circumstances, the neural pathways in the human brain, past experiences, predictions of the effects of the decision, yadda yadda. When god IS us; when god IS everything we are made of (indivisible physically down to the most basest of constituents of matter), one cannot in all reason expect the freewills of the god and the individual to be divisible/separate-able.

I think we are just making alternate decisions on what we believe would happen if the freewill of god and all the freewills of the universe, indeed every single atom moving etc. were one. You don't seem to want to make the leap required to accept that these things could be one and the same and that this would mean a joined universal freewill.

If we are to question the concept of freewill itself from a purely philosophical perspective (not the physical perspective I am presently working within (my premise)) then that is a different conversation: as in we don't have freewill because we are just atoms/molecules/synapses reacting as they are designed to(naturally or by god) and so we have no freewill. But I would apply this to god as well. For the type of deistic god I am referring to is also composed of the physical and would be subject to such an interpretation of freewill. As in if we have no freewill, so god also has no freewill, because we only do what the nature of what we consist of can do when challenged in any given situation.

 

[NMSquirrel]

The law says 55 mph, i can still choose to go faster..

The argument assumes a possibility of us knowing what God.. thinks we will do.

God knowing what we will do includes and/or statements (he will do this and/or that)

the question of whether your salvation comes from God or you, it is you..it is there for you to accept..(recognize), questioning leads to knowledge/wisdom, but is not required for salvation..in the end it is only a choice as to whether to believe or not...no more..no less..

 

[Syne]

Let's look at your earlier example of a photon. Sure, in some sense it sees history as a single moment (less than a moment in fact, since all of it's motion through spacetime is motion through space only). But a photon hasn't already arrived at it's final destination, even though it technically doesn't have to "wait" to get there. Our future is only ever a part of a photons present once we have already arrived at that future. I'm quite certain at this point that we are in agreement here.

Yes.

But why use the phrase "our future is a god's present"? It's just like the phrase "our future is a photon's present". It implies that a god, or a photon, already has a present that includes our future. This implication is even clearer in light of the following additional factors:

1) when you used this phrase, you were talking about omnipresence as the mechanism by which the future is known by a god instead of omniscience
2) when you used this phrase, it was hot on the heels of an earlier discussion in this thread that involved the claim that God knows the future by virtue of having already experienced it
3) when you used this phrase, it was in a direct reply to the following statement: "There is certainly an abundance of theists however who claim that God's knowledge of future events is absolute, and that probability doesn't factor into the equation at all."

Why use the phrase "our future is a god's present"? Like "our future is a photon's present", it implies nothing more than a difference in time rates. Now, I can see how you may have been confused, without fully appreciating the relevance of relativity, but I have long since cleared that up for you.

1) If all time is a god's present then only omnipresence is necessary for omniscience. In this case, omnipresence is equivalent to omniscience. Actually, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence are three sides of the same thing, but that goes beyond the scope of this thread.

2) You would need to cite this "hot on the heels of". I do not believe I said "already experienced" even though such a god's present is a moment which is not defined to distinguish tense such as "already".

3) With a differing time rate, one present can easily correspond to another's future without any need to account for probability at all.

So from that moment on I assumed that you were in fact defending that notion. This contextualized our entire discussion for me.

Anyway, whatever. Since you're not actually arguing that God has already seen our future in an absolute sense, I guess we can proceed to wrap this up.

Yes, you inferred much that was not implied. Such a god would see our future "in an absolute sense", just not with any "already" qualifier which conflates tense in the differing time rates.

It is - but you have been arguing merely about whether a God that knows all is something that is incompatible with free-will... i.e. whether merely the existence of an omniscient God is incompatible.

Predestination goes far beyond merely knowing.
Predestination is the theological concept that everything is willed by God.
It is possible, afterall, for God to know everything, yet have no input into how/why it happens - i.e. a god that predestines everything will know everything, but a god that knows everything need not have predestined everything.
How so, when you agree that the OP addresses divine predestination?
If I raise a thread asking about a car that is run on ethanol, and you discuss a car that is run on diesel... how is that answering the questions raised in the thread?
I'm not looking to neglect notions of a god, and there are plenty of other threads on which to discuss determinism versus free-will. So no, this is not what I am looking to do.

The question is whether predestination - i.e. the concept that everything is willed by a god - is compatible with freewill or not.
You have seemingly equated predestination with omniscience.
But while predestination infers omniscience, omniscience does not infer predestination - and you have argued that it is possible for a god to be omniscient but not be incompatible with free-will - omniscience does not infer predestination: i.e. it is possible to know something without that thing be the result of one's will.

I am just trying to point out that you have seemingly drifted onto omniscience as the focus, yet that in itself is not the question at hand.

If god wills everything - then yes, he will know everything, but it also destroys all means of free-will. They are incompatible.
The only means I can see of them being compatible is for God to will the concept of free-will to exist, and either to limit that free-will to a mere illusion within those that hold it, or to relinquish his hold over what happens to those in which he has instilled free-will... even though he will still know all.

1. A creator god would necessarily create of its own essence, whatever that may be.
2. Separations of this god's essence can never be more than illusory and arbitrary.

It then follows that any such god is necessarily omnipresent, or co-present, with any existence and that any will expressed, no matter how far seemingly removed, is the expression of such a god's own will. If human free will is denied then so too is the will of the god. Predestination is only a god's-eye-view of the collective expression of all wills. It expresses the human sense of impotence when faced with the will of all mankind. Others exercising free will does not preclude the individual from doing so, and it actually allows for constraints in which free will can be more starkly defined. Without any constraint there would be no dichotomy to define free will in comparison.

Universaldistress: Answer: Then either there is no free-will other than the illusion of it... as we have no chance of going against the will of god, even if one claims our will and god's are the same... or there is no predestination as god has not willed anything until we ourselves determine it - i.e. we are the willing entity, not god.

We are the willing entity AND the only expression of the will of such a god. Universaldistress seems to needlessly define these two as separate entities.

 

[universaldistress]

We are the willing entity AND the only expression of the will of such a god. Universaldistress seems to needlessly define these two as separate entities.

Hi Syne; could be beneficial for you to read my posts on this thread in entirety. The quote you reference to is Sarkus's words.

When god IS us; when god IS everything we are made of (indivisible physically down to the most basest of constituents of matter), one cannot in all reason expect the freewills of the god and the individual to be divisible/separate-able.

The type of god I was explaining is along similar lines to your own I think?

 

[Syne]

We are the willing entity AND the only expression of the will of such a god. Universaldistress seems to needlessly define these two as separate entities.

Hi Syne; could be beneficial for you to read my posts on this thread in entirety. The quote you reference to is Sarkus's words.

When god IS us; when god IS everything we are made of (indivisible physically down to the most basest of constituents of matter), one cannot in all reason expect the freewills of the god and the individual to be divisible/separate-able.

The type of god I was explaining is along similar lines to your own I think?

I was referring to statements such as this:

If you choose to not kill, it is the will of god and you combined.

You cannot "combine" things that are not inherently separate. I think we do generally agree, but these sorts of statements seem to confuse some of the posters here. Better to just say that the will of a god is an abstraction of the collection of all wills. At least this does not leave the question of individual free will in doubt.

 

[Cris]

Gerhard,

Knowing something before it happens, does not remove the choice of the creature.

Yes it does. The perceived choice in this case is an illusion. If the future event is known for certain then there can be no option but for that event to occur - the creature can have no alternative, i.e. has no choice in the matter.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Gerhard,

Yes it does. The perceived choice in this case is an illusion. If the future event is known for certain then there can be no option but for that event to occur - the creature can have no alternative, i.e. has no choice in the matter.

I am puzzled how you come to that conclusion, yet I know how prolific some strange philosophies are.

If you truly appreciate what love is, you'll know that it is impossible for love to exist without genuine freedom of choice.

Choice, faith and love are paramount to intelligence.

If you don't have faith in God, then you cannot know what love is, hence you cannot know or understand whether genuine freedom exists.

The arguments against this principle come from people who are incapable of knowing otherwise.

That's the difference between freedom and captivity.

God has given you a measure of faith before birth, use it.

Many posts on this thread have already made that plain.

 

[Sarkus]

Seriously, I have no idea where to start on a response... almost every line contains either an unsubstantiated claim, a logical fallacy or most likely both... or more!
The conclusion he reached was through logic. If you dispute it, at least show how it is logically flawed rather than spout some unsubstantiated and elitist claim along the lines of "if you don't believe then you can't know!"

 

[Rav]

Why use the phrase "our future is a god's present"? Like "our future is a photon's present", it implies nothing more than a difference in time rates. Now, I can see how you may have been confused, without fully appreciating the relevance of relativity, but I have long since cleared that up for you.

The implication is much more than a mere "difference in time rates", because if that's all it is, it's not knowledge of the future at all.

You basically seem to be saying that because time might not actually pass for a god (in the same sense that it might not pass for a photon), that all events throughout the fullness of time are known, even as we sit here waiting for them to unfold from our perspective. It's like saying that a photon currently en route to Earth from the sun knows it's going to be absorbed by a chlorophyll molecule because it's also present at the point of absorption. I mean, that's what temporal omnipresence is, isn't it? Being "present" at every point in time.

You're going to need to do a better job of explaining how all this is compatible with the position that the future doesn't, in some sense, already exist.

You would need to cite this "hot on the heels of". I do not believe I said "already experienced" even though such a god's present is a moment which is not defined to distinguish tense such as "already".

I wasn't referring to previous discussion between you and me, but previous discussion in general.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Seriously, I have no idea where to start on a response... almost every line contains either an unsubstantiated claim, a logical fallacy or most likely both... or more!
The conclusion he reached was through logic. If you dispute it, at least show how it is logically flawed rather than spout some unsubstantiated and elitist claim along the lines of "if you don't believe then you can't know!"

When you love someone, or are loved, do you do logical gymnastics or do you believe?

There is nothing illogical about faith.

A child is asked to close their eyes and hold their hand out, the gift has never been seen or heard of, the child doesn't want to guess, because it just wants the surprise, and smiles in faith.

The logical child cannot see the gift and therefor the gift cannot exist. The parent is just standing there with their hands behind their back. The logical child does not close its eyes or put the hands out.

 

[universaldistress]

I was referring to statements such as this:



You cannot "combine" things that are not inherently separate. I think we do generally agree, but these sorts of statements seem to confuse some of the posters here. Better to just say that the will of a god is an abstraction of the collection of all wills. At least this does not leave the question of individual free will in doubt.

I take your delicate point Syne. This thread for me is a learning/defining experience as it is questioning my theories/ideas of god in ways I haven't thought about before (new territory). So the step by evolution of my conceptualisation here is a work in progress (hence the ranging/developing semantics if there is any). Also I am trying to tempt people into making the step across this specific logical barrier/impasse as a thought experiment, by appealing to their conceived axioms in lieu of remoulding their thoughts along the lines of how I see it, not as a definite explanation but as a plausible possibility for All.

Ie: In descriptive terms sometimes it is necessary to emulate the POV of the other side of the debate to draw them into your POV. There are many ways to define the same process, when different views are taken.

I could say that god has freewill. A human has freewill. But both are the same will as they are/combined without confusing the matter. I myself do not believe this to be an issue; or in fact a definite, just a possibility, so these conjecturalisations lend themselves to exploring best ways of concisely defining terms ad hoc.

Not sure if I wholly agree with the abstraction description entire, as it implies the will of god can only be equal at most to the sum of all wills? I would say that the will of god/creative-source is the will of people (whole universe's collective will sentient or basic (physical properties etc.)) but also the will of god is more than the sum of all within our scale of reference (which I could explain further but it eats into my work in progress).

I see the will of the creative source (god) as one that orchestrates all movement within the universe down to the finest degree, but is also a whole sum more; and farther ranging in scope than we could possibly envisage in any detail. I do not see the fact the will of god is a whole lot more than the sum of all wills and computations of matter interactions etc. as anything that eats into the ability of anyone individual or limited-collective to express their freewills in anyway they see fit. The framework is supplied by the creator, is the creator, and we are free to will whatever we wish, but obviously the framework we function in is a limited one at present, until we can evolve to the point of omni-like orchestration over this framework.

But of course we could go further to say that the limits of the human physique and mind are direct restrictions on our freewill. Are we free to move outside the atmosphere of the earth without a spacesuit? Some could say this is possible in the future. So is the restriction time related, as in I won't be able to enact this feat within my lifetime, therefore I don't have freewill due to these out of my control restrictions? Freewill of a human is limited by intrinsic nature of the framework of creative source, freewill of creative source is limited by intrinsic nature of protomatter/infinity. But freewill of human is FREE within limits. Freewill of god is FREE within limits. So freewill is mutually exclusive, and also one.

What I find great is that for me the direction it moves in is out of the control of god (teaser).