Libertarian free will and the eternal being of God

I am a computer scientist as well, and I have always held that the concept of a computer program would encompass what we call a human being. A program is the most rigorous conception of a description we have. If something cannot even in principle be accurately described then it is truly random. This applies to human beings as well. So therefore the computational paradigm must encompass us as well. And to me this has never been a problem, because it dovetails quite neatly with what the Bible clearly teaches about the absolute sovereignty of God. We are a creation - how different from that is saying that we are a machine. What are animals if not machines. And Ecclesiastes asked rhetorically whose to say we are not animals. And what about DNA - is that a program. And if there is some aspect of us that is not describable or directly emanating from something not describable then that aspect of us is literally random. You sell machines short by assuming one machine couldn't create another. Ultimately only God is not a machine, but instead the Infinite.

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

God is about order. What is a machine if not order. I think the history of the universe is order interacting with true randomness to produce increasingly complex order via energy and continually approaching the infinite order of God.

 

Before I engage further in this speculative venture, can you explain to me how God ever makes a choice or originates a thought? Having always known the outcome of his choices, how does he ever come to make the choice? And having always known every thought how does he ever come to originate anything new?

I suspect such things are too great for our minds to grasp and that anyone objectively addressing such things would necessarily appeal to some level of mystery. Right?

Does doing so negate divine omniscience? Does it negate divine choice or creativity? If not, why not? If so, why?

 

BTW, AresMan, that was one of the best, well worded, and reasoned arguments I have read here in quite sometime. Kudos my brother!

And you didn't resort to ad hominem even once! My respect for you deepens and I do plan to address your masterful post, but please address my question above first as I think it may provide a foundation for my rebuttal.

Thanks! :thumbs:

 

To Skandelon - I don't think God really makes choices either. Everything is predetermined. I'm not demanding we get rid of the word choice from the language though.

As far as "creativity", for us that involves trial and error until hitting upon something that is pleasing to us aesthetically for some reason, then preserving that and passing it on to future generations who incrementally modify it until hitting upon variations that are pleasing to them for some reason. (Although creativity need not involve aesthetics, but also pre-specified criteria that are satisfied). Why is something aesthetically pleasing. Why is some sequence of sounds considered melodious and another sequence not. Is some sequence tapping into some eternally perfect harmony. But God didn't choose his attributes. He has infinite attributes and there are infinite things that are not his attributes. But he didn't choose his attributes.

When a bower-bird creates some spectacular piece of architecture, incorporating all sorts of myriad colored items he has found, is it because of his free will.

Just some pointless musings of mine.

 

I assume you meant, "I will never resort to character bashing, again", unless you're perfect.

All it takes is some pig-headed, sarcastic, condescending, or other uncalled-for remark in response to your thoughtful reasoned remarks for one to respond in kind.

------------
Although if you have the power to delete posts, it makes you a lot more civil I think. (No offense, skandelon, really, just occurred to me. I would always be polite and accommodating too, if I could hit one button and make someone disappear.

 

When you program a robot, you don't foresee all the circumstances it will interact with, except in a general sense. The whole objective is to turn it loose at some point, so that it can encounter novel situations which you did not even directly anticipate, and interact meaningfully in those scenarios. And to interact meaningfully means crafting a solution to problems - that is, what the robot would do is craft some solution in a scenario that it is presented with. And the more complex the robot is, the more complex the solutions it can contrive. What it is doing is autonomously programming. If it is able to learn, i.e. take in information over time on its own by observing its environment, it is growing in complexity without your direct input. I know this is all hypothetical and perhaps overly optimisitc wrt current capabilities, but it is what computers are supposed to be able to do in principle.

 

I am not in any sense an open theist. Don't know what I said to convey that. My overriding point here is that the computer analogy be fully embraced wrt to human beings because it is ultimately the only rational alternative, for reasons I won't repeat. I am much closer to you in viewpoint than you realize, aside from your apparent need in the case of humans to back away from calling them machines and hold own to some nominal degree of mysticism there. We can only discuss things that at least in principle can be described, and since a program is the most rigorous conception of a description we have, we have to assume that humans can be described that way in principle.

No, that aspect of it I wasn't referencing God. It was a remark you made that whatever a computer [i.e. robot, program] does is because someone explicitly programmed a specific behavior into it, and my point is that the behavior a machine can be just as complex and unpredictable as as any biological machine. What about animals, they're machines right - and extremely complicated.

As far as God though, I don't believe that he oversaw every minute aspect of creation. I think it proceeds on its own, by tapping into God, in the sense that whatever emergent variation most closely converges with divine perfection it is preserved, or dies out to the extent it does not. God doesn't need to give micro-level attention to something for it to happen, anymore than an expert-level person needs to obsess about actions in which he is so skilled he can do them subconciously almost.

It could be that a device made out of metal will never approach the sophistication of a biological entity. But even so, it is speculation for anyone to assert what even metal computers are or are not capable of. I'm not particularly concerned with implementation details or limits of a specific physical configuration - only that humans are deterministic devices just like a computer or program, or at least that is the only way that can be considered meaningfully.

 

If creatures cannot create thoughts then you are left with God creating the first sinful thought of Satan to rebel and attempt to become like God...and we know God is not the author of evil. So, either way you run into difficulty. I'd just prefer to run into the difficulty of not understanding the logic of how God created contra-causually free moral creatures, than the difficulty of impugning the holiness of God...as the scripture does clearly reveal God's nature of holiness, while remaining silent as to the full nature of a creature's freedom. Still, there are many verses which certainly seem to suggest a since of contra-causal freedom, but I admit it is truly mysterious and beyond full comprehension.

Yet scripture has no qualms with presenting God in that very light....(i.e. Moses prays and God relents...Jesus learned obedience...Jesus wept...God chose this or that...etc etc etc). I understand the anthropomorphic argument regarding such texts, but even if that argument is accepted it doesn't change the fact that God has chosen those terms to reveal himself and thus it cannot be wrong to understand and explain him using only those terms. Understand what I'm saying?

I know an intellectual, as yourself, has a difficult time accepting such revelation on face value, but maybe this is why God warned that we should become as a child, humble ourselves, and that he uses the weak, not the strong.

And I could make the point that your questions and arguments relate to hyperism and fatalism; but that would be a debate fallacy; and you seem like the type would rather allow a point of debate stand or fall on its own merit rather than lazily label it and dismiss it without due consideration. Am I right? If I'm not, this is going to be a real short discussion

You: You're a process theologian, which we all know are heretics, so I'm not going to deal with that point.
Me: You're a fatalistic hyperist, which we all know are heretics, so I'm not going to deal with that point.

End of discussion. :tear:

It may be wise for us to define what we mean by Libertarian freedom before moving on. I personally prefer the term contra-causal freedom, which defined is, "A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom)."

So, suppose you lied yesterday at noon, were you able to willingly refrain from that action? Suppose you were going to be tempted to lie tomorrow at noon. Will you be able to willingly refrain or not refrain from that act?

Scripture certain speaks as if that is within the agents ability, and thus I see no reason to believe otherwise simply because my finite logic can't fully explain how that is accomplished.

Yes, I'd agree that they are not the same, but to appeal to mystery in regard to one leaves the door open to appeal to mystery in regard to the other, does it not? If we can accept the mystery of God's free creative abilities then certainly we can accept the mystery regarding those he uniquely created in his image and who He even said 'have become like us, knowing both good and evil.'

I think I'm doing just the opposite as my view would rather appeal to mystery than impugn his Holiness by somehow even suggesting he originates sinful intents of the heart, or predetermines sinful acts.

 

But my argument is not that man's free agency MUST be similar to God's (though because we are created in his image and said to be like him in our knowledge of good and evil certainly suggest this), my argument is that an appeal to mystery in regard to THE CREATOR makes the appeal to mystery in regard ONE CREATED BY AN ALL POWERFUL CREATOR equally tenable....unless of course you deny divine omniscience by suggesting that God is just not capable of creating such a creature.

As if there is another option for a human?

Why do you think my view has the mystery being 'independent from the purpose of the Creator?' I never said that. What do you believe about my view that would cause you to think that?

I believe reason and common sense tells us that for an agent to be held to account for his choices that they should be determined by the agent and not someone else.

If I drug my kid as a punishment for disobedience and the drug makes him not desire to obey me ever again; then, I choose to punish him severely for his continued rebellion, there is not a court in the land who would condone such behavior. This is vitally what God does in the compatibilistic system. He chooses to punish all mankind for the representatives sin (Adam's Fall) with a totally depraved nature (the drug), then he invites them to reconciliation (which the drug prevents them from willingly accepting), so then He severely punishes them for their unbelief.

What do you assert is necessary for moral accountability, if not the 'ability to account' for ones acts? What do you think makes someone response-able if not the 'ability to respond.'

I agree. I'm not sure how this relates to my view? That probably needs to be unpacked before we can go much further with this...

 

Wouldn'r God have created everything "in the beginning" with all the future already 'coded" into it?

that God would have had decisions already made per Him, and would allow for both His determinitive Will and our 'freewill" decisions?