Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Free will. The idea is that for free will to exist you must be able to choose the wrong action.
If a supreme being rules out all wrong actions or prevented you from taking wrong actions, how could there be free will? How could you even be responsible for your own thoughts and actions. How are you not just a puppet?
Alternately you can think of it as a leveling up. It seems like the Apple is always represented as “knowledge of good and evil”. So originally they’re just animals. They take actions but there is no morality, nothing is good or bad. But if they use their free will to take this one forbidden step, they receive the knowledge of good and evil, they can act good or act bad, they know it’s good or bad, and they have the free will to choose their path. And they are accountable for those choices. Now they’re human
But if god is omniscient, then he knows what they're going to do. And if he already knows that, then do they really have free will? Or do they just think they do?
There's 3 philosophies I've seen on that question.
One is the planned domino effect, which another commentator already mentioned.
The next is the "paradoxical being" one, which is that something that is omniscient is paradoxical by default, therefore it can both know what will happen and simultaneously not know what will happen.
The last is the "unknown destiny" one, which is that even if we don't actually have free will, as long as we think we do and can't prove we don't, then does it matter? Because ultimately it would be no different to us than if we actually did have it.
Interesting, thanks.
Addressed the first one on that other comment.
The second one just seems contradictory tbh, how can it be both?
The third one is interesting - but subjectively feeling like we have free will isn't the same as objectively having it.
And if there was a god and he was allowing (in fact, causing) us to believe we had free will, when we actually didn't, would just create the situation where god had misled us.
I think the best way out is that we do have free will, but god isn't omniscient (if he exists at all).
Well that's the nature of paradoxes, isn't it? But paradox philosophy is a whole 'nother can of worms and a very long discussion in of itself, though you've probably encountered some examples before, such as this one:
The next sentence is true. The prior sentence is false.
It results in an endless loop. Contradictory, yes, yet both sentences still exist, and are sentences.
Yes, true, but the point of that third one is that the result would be the same in the sense that in both cases, humans believe they have free will, and therefore their actions are determined by that, whether or not that path was outlined beforehand by a being we cannot fathom / fully comprehend or not. The actions will still become as they are.
I've also heard this third argument combined a bit with the second one as an attempt to better make sense of the paradox (although by doing so, it's really not a paradox anymore), and that is that God knows all possible paths humans would take, but not necessarily which one / God made infinite path he knows the outcome of but we are free to pick which one we take.
This issue I have with that one is that it's no longer a truly full omniscient being at that point.
This s is where you have the argument that a supreme being might have set the universe in motion but deliberately does not interfere with the way it evolves. The conditions are as close to even as possible so things can go either way …. For an infinite number of decisions for an infinite time
It's not a question of interfering or not though, it's about foreknowledge.
Either god had foreknowledge of their choice, and therefore A&E couldn't have made any other decision than they did, or they had genuine free will meaning he wasn't omniscient.
Ahh so the real original sin is entrapment. Got it.