Free will means God exists. No free will means God does not exist. See prior posts for details. Yes/no?

Question

I saw an answer here by J.P., whom I respect a great deal, explaining by analogy why we do not have free will. Basically… if you exactly recreate the DNA, and the experiences, the human will react in exactly the same way. Since actions can be predicted, this means we have no free will. Consciousness is mechanistic and predictable.

But this seems to be a straw man analogy to get to the desired conclusion. For example, if you get into your time machine and go back in time to observe yourself, you will find that you will do everything the same, since everything is exactly the same. It is a self-evident tautology, and does not rule in or rule out free will.

The premise is that consciousness can be created by computational power. Ray Kurzweil predicts this in his book, The Age of Spiritual Machines based on, “prophesy”. Professor John Searle at UC Berkeley says this is absurd, for “computers just shuffle symbols”.

Do you think you have free will?
How can this be tested?

Eri: you missed what I said. If there is a creator, then you do have free will. If there is no creator, then you do not have free will.

Scout: you are bringing religion into this. Yes, some people believe this. The question is meant to be philosophical, not religious.

Jack: You reach an absurdity, when you assume a being of infinite intelligence creates something they can predict. Some religions believe "A God" that knows the future. But that is absurd, logically.

Hi Kjelstad: I'd suggest you email J.P. I argue from the "Creator" side. He argues from the Atheist side. I think we see the situation exactly the same, though we have come to opposite conclusions.

Basic thought is: if the world is pure cause and effect, then the universe is deterministic and free will is an illusion.

However, if consciousess exists and is tied to a truly independent soul, then free will exists.

Nick F: I hope J.P. does not mind me doing this. J.P. is an atheist and a genius, and he can explain this based on computer theory, the Heisenburg uncertainty principle, quatum mechanics, brain functioning, etc. Or check my prior questions where he did answer.

Hi Aldephic: I hope you are not an illusion, lol. Wilder Penfield is the father of modern neurosurgery. He tried to prove brain accounts for mind. He did little tests, electrical stimulations, while operating on 1000+ epileptic patients. He ended up concluding that mind and body appeared to be separate, though they did interact.

jay: They are stated as assertions, but are actually logical conclusions. That was why I said, see prior posts.

Rance: that was why I added an edit to say this was not a religious discussion, it was a logical and philosophical discussion.

Hi J.P.: Glad you were not upset at the question or my compliments of you. I was going to answer a question about an hour ago, saw your answer and decided to ask a question based on what you had written.

I'll mull over what you wrote and get back to you. I also suggested that some folks contact you to get their answers.

Take care!

J.P.: Assume the only things we can know are those things supported with empirical evidence. Thus, we can have no knowledge of mathematical understanding or our own internal mental states, what we are thinking.

For mathematical knowledge, we rely on evidence of reason based on certain mathematical principles, none of which are empirical.

When we deal with knowledge about our own internal mental states, we know them based on introspection or self-examination, which can be highly subjective. For example, I am in pain simply by feeling hurt. I see green, you see lime. Most of our internal states are simply self-evident.

The point is that knowledge comes from without (nature to the senses, science), and within (what does it mean, reason, feeling, consciousness).

I think the idea of self evident interal states is a strong reason to justify free will. No matter how you measure my brain, and try to simulate it, you will only know what "I am" thinking, when "I" tell you.

J.P.: I ran out of room. This is philosophical, sorry. It's the old idea of specifics, which do exist materially, and concepts, which exist mentally.

I read this once, "The soul, if it exists, is not physical. We cannot scientifically measure and observe a soul. But this does not mean, that there is no evidence for it. This only means that there is no physical evidence for the soul."

Kind of like there is no physical evidence for concepts, yet they do exist.

This is not a proof, as you and I know. But, philosophy and even theology rightly step in when science faces the unknown and unknowable. I understand, this is uncomfortable to a pure empiricist. But, as you know, I do not consider life to be purely empirical.

There are specifics and concepts, brain and consciousness, body and soul, the known and the unknown, thinkers and feelers, objective and subjective, atheists and theists, scientists and theologians. Things and reality comes in 2’s, I believe.

J.P.: I do not deny, from an empirical standpoint any of what you wrote.

So if we could compute all this, as per your premises. What portion of all possible knowledge of the universe and existence would we know, compared to what is unknown? Ball park estimate.

Ok, then what about new information?

The information and knowledge we are creating now is accelerating and doubling every 10-20 years (estimate). For how long can this continue? How would a materialistic being create all this new information? Information that is currently unknown.

Is an implication is that we could “theoretically” model Einstein’s brain and extract the theory of relativity from it?

Or how to paint the Mona Lisa, before it was done?

I realize I switched the issue from empiricism to philosophy. But, empiricism has to be able to answer these questions.

I will also re-look at what you wrote and get back to you. I learn every time.

Take care!

Answer 1

You miss, however, that I never said free will implied deity, only that lack of free will implies lack of deity.

Establish this in formal logic in the following manner:

A = A deity exists
B = Free will exists.

IF (A) THEN (B).

Notice that I use IF, not IIF (if, not, if and only if). I assert that Deity is sufficient cause, but not necessary cause. There could be a scientific principle of which we are not yet aware that could create free will without the necessity of a deity.

However, since I establish deity as a sufficient cause (really, what kind of deity would create perfectly deterministic if stochaistic thinking beings?), if free will can be disproven, then deity is disproven by modus tollens:

IF A THEN B. (axiom)
NOT B. (given)
THEREFORE NOT A. (modus tollens)

This can be shown to be Modus Ponens via the contrapositive:

IF A THEN B. (axiom)
IF NOT B THEN NOT A. (contrapositive).
NOT B. (given)
THEREFORE NOT A. (modus ponens)

This also means that the deific hypothesis is testable -- it can be falsified. Show that there is no free will, and you show that there is no deity.

How to test free will? Can free will exist? We've already discussed this in some detail. If you suppose the three axioms of science are valid (and to invalidate any of the three, you invalidate the ability to have any knowledge at all: Math & Logic are valid, observations are valid if based on direct sensation or math & logic, the supernatural either does not exist OR does not interfere with the natural), then free will can rationally be discounted. Such discounting can be done as follows:

The mind is an emergent, if still not understood, property of the physical and energetic nature of the human being. (nonsupernatural causation -- a soul would be supernatural).

The state of any physical system can be stochaistically determined from its previous state and the current inputs. However, the past is 'past' and therefore it is determined. The consequence is that I can predict the next state with great precision but in a few thousand states, the precision may be nearly nill, and within a million states, it is as close to zero as you can get. (mathematical principle).

The stoichasm is a consequence of quantum randomness. If quantum randomness is redefined as an input to the process (ie: I'm going to kill that guy but a virtual electron/positron pair form in my brain with the cascade effect of me changing my mind), then the stoichaism is removed. The situation is now deterministicly based on the current state and the inputs.

Determinism is incompatible with free will.

-----

I agree that to have perfect knowledge of state and inputs is impossible. However, the feasibility of a computation does not change its computability. RSA encryption starts with taking two prime numbers of significant size and multiplying them together, then ditching the primes. The security of RSA is based on the infeasibility to factor the multiple. But I can give you an algorithm, perfectly deterministic, for factoring that number:

N = P*Q. Discard P & Q.
MAX = sqrt(N).
for COUNTER 1 to MAX:
.. if N / COUNTER is integer
.... P = COUNTER
.... Q = N / COUNTER
.. endif
endfor

100% guaranteed this algorithm will work. It just happens that it'll take 10^85 years to run it on a 4096-bit key.


-------------

Cogito Sum, I in no way object to your choice to reference me as you have. Quite the contrary, I consider it a significant honor and compliment that you consider my view sufficiently curious to bring it up specifically.

------------

As I understand your added comment (sorry for delay, went to lunch), you are saying that since I cannot know the state of your mind without you reporting it, I cannot perform the calculations at all. However, this overlooks the idea that whether you or I can detect it, the state DOES exist. For example, if I fill an olympic sized swimming pool with perfectly pure water in a perfectly sterile environment, and place one single molecule of deuterium (in the form of D2O) into the vastness of that pool, it will be effectively undetectable. Or if I put a bit of data on a hard disk and then overwrite it 15 times, it falls below the detectability threshold of the universe. That doesn't mean the deuterium or subsubsubsubsub...subharmonic isn't there -- just that it's out of our scope to detect. The laws of physics, however, don't care what we can or cannot detect -- in fact, they determine what we can and cannot detect. The state remains even if it is below detection.

It does not matter if we can know the state of a thing, it is sufficent that the thing exists for the laws of physics to operate on its state.

Let's say you give me an arbitrarily large string of 1's and 0's. I am going to operate on the rule that anywhere I see 11 I will replace it with 00 or if I see 00 I will replace it with 11. Choose the string sufficently large and I'll never be able to know the entire state. But I can apply my two simple rules to it in succession on what pieces I can observe -- and given sufficent time to apply those rules, the outcome is set in stone, even though I may never know the full state (my observations only let me see 11 or 00, not 10 or 01).

Computability only requires that a state exist and for functions to oeprate on that state, not the knowability of the state.

----------

I interpret your question to mean: If all these things are knowable and computable, what portion of the universe could we know. Probably fewer than 1% of all that is knowable, if you want all details, 100% if you want the rules by which all that is knowable operates.

The universe is expanding at an accellerating rate. At some point, at our best current understanding, the universe will be receeding from itself at faster than light speed (spacetime itself can move that fast -- only substance cannot; spacetime is just where you keep your 'stuff'). That means that there are likely already portions of the universe beyond the inflationary wall (which we discussed in a previous question), things we literally can NEVER know, in a detail manner.

The difference is this -- if I set up a game of Plinko (the game with a bunch of rows of pegs and you drop a ball and let it bounce around and where it ends up at the bottom determines the outcome), I could describe for you the physics involved in perfect detail. But because the path of each individual ball, I could not give you the perfect details of every single trajectory that will be taken. But the physics determin the perfect details of every POSSIBLE path, and if you were able to give the EXACT specifications of the board and ball and the starting position of the ball and the local environmental conditions .... etc... The path WOULD be perfectly determinable.

You can get 100% knowledge of the processes of, but not 100% knowledge of all of the actual computations of those processes.

-------------

What aaadriaan... below me fails to comprehend is that predictability is a question of feasible computation, not computability.

Further, determinism does not abdicate responsibility. By way of analogy:

I have this beautiful laptop in front of me, running a not so beautiful operating system. I have this one program that I have to put up with being on my computer -- if I run it, my system will freeze or crash. However, I can create a virtual machine (say, via VMWare) and then run the program in that virtual machine.
Let's say the OS keeps track of programs that crash. If it crashes more than 1 in 5 runs, it starts running that program in a virtual machine instead.

Without free will, my laptop will begin running that program in a virtual machine.

This is analgous to a non-free will society making the choice to isolate those who operate erroneously.

Determinism may absolve ultimate moral responsibility but does not deny the ability to react to the immoral.

Answer 2

Most Christians are quick to say that they posses free will. Otherwise, how would one sin if they did not posses free will. In actuality, however, free will is NOT compatible with the Christian belief system. Please allow me to explain.

First, most Christians believe that God is infallible...that it is not possible that God could ever be wrong. This is generally a given regarding the nature of God. Second, most Christians believe that God is omniscient...that God is "all knowing" regarding all things past, present, & future. Again, this is another given in the standard dogmatic belief system of Christians. Now, if God know everything that is going to occur in the future, and if God is NEVER wrong, then the future can and will occur in only one way. If the future can occur in only one way then free will cannot exist as there exists only one future coarse and outcome. To state otherwise would be to admit that either 1) God can be wrong or 2) that God is not omniscient...which is something that no self respecting Christian would ever admit.

Since I have just argued that free will is an illusion (if you are Christian) then this would also imply that sin does not exist as people are not truly free to chose right from wrong. They are set upon a single course from which they can never deviate. This being the case we would then have to ask: Why do people pray? Do these people truly believe that God is willing to alter the course of his divine plan to accomodate the desires of one person? Or groups of people? Or the world for that matter?

Answer 3

The closest parallel I can think of is Isaac Asimov's "phsychohistory", where game theory applied to retrospective analysis of group actions can be used to predict the probability of the actions of certain groups. This has merit, but individuals still maintain free will.

The time machine analogy just measures what has already occurred. I don't see the connection there.

Free will is necessary for us to truly love God, and is a gift from Him. It has nothing to do with proving His existence (this is accomplished by the existence of the universe). It does prove that He is loving.

Good discussion point, though!

Answer 4

I doubt there's anyway to test whether or not we have free will, because no matter what happens, someone could just claimed that god made it happen that way. But if god has a plan for everyone, and wanted everyone to have a chance at life, then how could there possibly be free will, since your parents might have not decided to ever get together?

Yet another reason just to drop the whole god thing altogether.

Answer 5

This question is very interesting but ultimately baseless. Does man have free will? in Islam we believe that we have don't have free will nor are we subjected to carry acts. We have something in between in that we have the choice to do something and this is called Kasb or acquisition of something. So I might the ability and the time to do something but I am not going to do due to other factors. like i could eat this apple or i could eat another apple. I may not know what I am going to do but knows what we were going to do before we were created. Man and jinn - ghostlike creatures have this sort of limited free will. Other inanimate things do not, a planet for instance like the sun. Like Angels as well and satan was not an angel he was Jinn and therefore he could disobey and when he did he thrown to earth in disgrace. In the Islamic tradition God/Allah is not unjust and therefore he cannot compel someone to do something. Instead he gives us options and we do what we want, within the bounds of our own limited natures. If you believe that God/Allah created the heavens and the earth and this is easy for you to understand. Then shouldn't be easier to understand that he controls things in a certain way. Its very subtle. God/Allah is all powerful, he knows the past, the present and the future. He knows what our hearts are thinking now and that is easy for him. Also know that when man tries to understand God, he will untlimatley fail. Its like asking a television to understand the man who created it. The television hasn't got a chance in that. One of the creedal rules in Islam about God/Allah is that he is completely different from creation. God is not created, therefore cannot follow the natures of creation. God is uncreated, he is not in need of anything and everything is in need of him.

Answer 6

Free will is a judgement of the practical intellect deriving from your conscience and that judgement can either be right or wrong. We have the ability to form our conscience to the basic norms of truth. How often do we misinterpret our conscience to think that it is whatever pops into our minds or how we feel which is a terrible way to make decisions. There must be a basis or start point or a foundation to build on and that would be God who is Truth.

Answer 7

I have free will and if I were cloned I would be raised completely different and not be the same predestined person. I don't see how free will proves a god though, Ted. God or no god I can chose to type on here or get back to work. It's up to me.

Answer 8

I think free will is largely an illusion but I'm not sure if it's all an illusion. Maybe there is a some amount of choice that we do have. I don't understand why you say "free will means God exists".

Answer 9

I just used my free will to click on the answer this button.

God exists - He gave us the "free will" to received salvation through Jesus or not. He doesn't force redemption on us, but gives a choice to accept it or not.

No matter what your philosophical argument may be, His ways are higher than ours, His argument is always going to win.

"that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse" that is found in the book of Romans Chapter 1 verses 19-20

If you seek Him you will find Him.

Answer 10

Humm...I do believe humans have free will. Perhaps it is an illusion. I don't have an answer except to say I will be thinking this one over for a while.

Have a great Thanksgiving!