But disbelief in God does not negate the possible fact that God created mankind with free will...
Hmmmm. Might it not be possible for such a "free will" to exist even in a deterministic universe? Even if all is determined, there is still the "option" for me to believe in a God (it all depends now on what you mean by "option"...).Loren Booda said:"free will" - the option to believe in a God, or to act separately from deistic influence. Also, the choice from the same potential awareness of deistic influence, or lack of, as everyone else.
A person who does not believe in God might still believe in free will (whatever that means), therefore there may not be any difference between "believers" and "non-believers" in the concept of free will. In other words, imho, there is no direct causal relationship between "belief in God" and "belief in free will".Loren Booda said:"If God allows free will for an individual, how would such free will differ for a person who does not believe in God? If there is no difference, might that infer that a God proof is moot for both?"
I am at a total loss as to what you mean here.Loren Booda said:Nor does belief in God support the possible fact that God created mankind with free will. Might this show that a "God proof" would be moot between theists and atheists?
Loren Booda said:In less turbid verbage, I am trying to assert that given free will, the belief in God will always be somewhat debatable.
In this case the free will endowed by the god would have to be totally "uncaused" by anything in the deterministic physical world and yet still have some form of causative power itself to affect the deterministic physical world if it is to have any meaning.Loren Booda said:Might not a God-wrought existence embody both free will and determinism? E. g., the free will of a soul and the physical determinism of the correspondence principle's upper limit (classicism).
?, but, this is exactly what was created, a totally deterministic world of flora and fauna, but with great meaning, forming the ecological template on which human life is possible. Does not photosynthesis and those organisms that carry on the process have great meaning for those life forms that require oxygen ? -- yet no free will within the trees, algae, etc.moving finger said:The important point is that it would be totally pointless and meaningless for a god to create a totally deterministic world, to endow his/her creation with any meaning he/she must also endow some kind of free will.
Yes, why not the possibility that our earthy existence is but one of many grand experiments, thus the choice to create other worlds with humans without free will to serve as an experimental control to follow the activities of free will humans on earth.moving finger said:Question : When God created free will, did He have any choice?MF
Loren Booda said:For instance, couldn't God have endowed evolution with seemingly random opportunities for selection?
How do you know that it is totally deterministic?Rade said:this is exactly what was created, a totally deterministic world of flora and fauna
Why would God want or need to create humans without free will? He is omniscient, therefore in the absence of free will He is able to predict exactly what will happen – why bother with the experiment if He already knows the outcome?Rade said:Question : When God created free will, did He have any choice?MF
Rade said:Yes, why not the possibility that our earthy existence is but one of many grand experiments, thus the choice to create other worlds with humans without free will to serve as an experimental control to follow the activities of free will humans on earth.
Did God give you a third option?Rade said:Here is my question, since I have free will, do I freely have the option to reject both heaven and hell after death and freely take the third logically possible option given to me by god--neither ?
Does not follow. <A> and <B> may be mutually exclusive (which prohibits the choice of “both <A> and <B>”), and/or one may be the negation of the other (which, following the law of the excluded middle, prohibits the choice of “neither <A> nor <B>”)Rade said:That is, when <A> and <B> are logical options, then so is |neither <A>nor<B>|, and |both <A>and<B>|.
Plants and animals have free will -- where is this philosophy developed ?moving finger said:How do you know that it {e.g., Earth without humans} is totally deterministic?
OK, why bother with free will experiment if he/she is omniscient ? If omnicient, then omniscient, and knows well ahead of time what free will option I will make--if not, then <not> omniscient.moving finger said:Why would God want or need to create humans without free will? He is omniscient, therefore in the absence of free will He is able to predict exactly what will happen – why bother with the experiment if He already knows the outcome?
Of course, and more--recall from the story that once was option [C]=eat from tree of life and live forever on earth. Of course, bad luck in fruit foraging patterns by first two humans did not allow the rest of us to gain this third option provided (but I suspect, not really being pushed for by creator, since creator was omniscient and knew tree of life would never be touched--very strange why then it is present ?). Now, logically, since the story teller allows for free will options other than [A] = heaven, = hell, then option [D] also is present, that is, I must have free will to select eternal death on earth, the logical opposite of [C]--which also goes by the saying "ashes to ashes, dust to dust". It does not matter that [D] is not spelled out in detail in the story other than "ashes.." statement, it is logically derived from the facts of the story. And recall, when story about option [C] was presented, there was no concept of =hell as an option anyway, this was only added as story was modified, perhaps incorrectly.moving finger said:Did God give you a third option?
Of course, lots of "may-be's" in your example. Now, I agree that option "both [A] and " does not seem to me to be a wise free will choice even if possible, but, as explained above, excluded middle logic does not apply to free will choice of life after death for humans because options [D] also exists in this time, not just [A] and , thus no negation of two entities.moving finger said:Does not follow. <A> and <B> may be mutually exclusive (which prohibits the choice of “both <A> and <B>”), and/or one may be the negation of the other (which, following the law of the excluded middle, prohibits the choice of “neither <A> nor <B>”)
The concept of free will with a noninterfering God or none at all is the idea that individuals have the ability to make choices and decisions without any external influence from a deity or without the existence of a higher power at all. This means that our actions and behaviors are solely determined by our own thoughts and desires.
The existence of a noninterfering God or no God at all does not necessarily affect our free will. Our free will is based on our ability to make choices and decisions, and whether or not a higher power exists does not change that. However, some argue that the belief in a higher power can influence our decisions, but ultimately, it is still our own free will that guides our actions.
Yes, free will can exist without a noninterfering God or any deity. The concept of free will is not dependent on the belief in a higher power. It is our ability to make choices and decisions that determines the existence of free will, not the existence of a deity.
The implications of a noninterfering God or no God on moral responsibility are debated. Some argue that without a higher power to hold us accountable, we have no moral responsibility for our actions. Others argue that our own conscience and societal norms determine our moral responsibility, regardless of the existence of a deity.
The compatibility of free will with the belief in a noninterfering God or the absence of a God is a complex and ongoing debate. Some argue that the idea of a noninterfering God or no God at all supports the concept of free will, as it removes the notion of a predetermined fate. Others argue that the existence of a higher power is necessary for true free will to exist. Ultimately, the compatibility depends on one's personal beliefs and interpretations.