What is Free Will?

[Ryft]

I was reading once again Augustine's Confessions this morning and stumbled across something I had forgotten he talked about. I'm sharing it here only because it is enlightening and temporarily relevant.

"People who speak in this way have not learnt to understand you, Wisdom of God, Light of our minds. They do not yet understand how the things are made which come to be in you and through you. Try as they may to savour the taste of eternity, their thoughts still twist and turn upon the ebb and flow of things in past and future time. But if only their minds could be seized and held steady, they would be still for a while and, for that short moment, they would glimpse the splendour of eternity which is for ever still. They would contrast it with time, which is never still, and see that it is not comparable. . . . But in eternity nothing moves into the past: all is present. . . . If only men's minds could be seized and held still! They would see how eternity, in which there is neither past nor future, determines both past and future time" (XI:11).​

On a more humorous note, I chuckled a bit when he said, "What, then, is time? I know well enough what it is, provided that nobody asks me . . ." (XI:14).


----------
Augustine. Confessions. trans. R.S. Pine-Coffin. Toronto: Penguin Books Canada, 1961.

 

[Delmar]

I was reading once again Augustine's Confessions this morning and stumbled across something I had forgotten he talked about. I'm sharing it here only because it is enlightening and temporarily relevant.

"People who speak in this way have not learnt to understand you, Wisdom of God, Light of our minds. They do not yet understand how the things are made which come to be in you and through you. Try as they may to savour the taste of eternity, their thoughts still twist and turn upon the ebb and flow of things in past and future time. But if only their minds could be seized and held steady, they would be still for a while and, for that short moment, they would glimpse the splendour of eternity which is for ever still. They would contrast it with time, which is never still, and see that it is not comparable. . . . But in eternity nothing moves into the past: all is present. . . . If only men's minds could be seized and held still! They would see how eternity, in which there is neither past nor future, determines both past and future time" (XI:11).​

On a more humorous note, I chuckled a bit when he said, "What, then, is time? I know well enough what it is, provided that nobody asks me . . ." (XI:14).


----------
Augustine. Confessions. trans. R.S. Pine-Coffin. Toronto: Penguin Books Canada, 1961.

Augustine, isn't he the dude that interpreted the Bible through pagan Greek philosophy!

 

[Balder]

You have no way of knowing that!

Not directly, it would appear. But can you demonstrate any logical flaws in that argument?

 

[Delmar]

Not directly, it would appear. But can you demonstrate any logical flaws in that argument?

I exsist and so do you.

 

[Balder]

I exsist and so do you.

Precisely. And if God is presumed to have an infinite history prior to making the world, then he never could have made the world because that history wouldn't have been exhausted yet.

And yet here we are.

So....?

 

[Delmar]

Precisely. And if God is presumed to have an infinite history prior to making the world, then he never could have made the world because that history wouldn't have been exhausted yet.

And yet here we are.

So....?

that does not seem self evident to me

 

[docrob57]

DocRob,

If by the expression "God is bound by time" you mean to imply that God has an 'experienced past' behind him and an 'unexperienced future' ahead of him, then how can it be said that he has perfect knowledge of causality? It seems to me that he would not have that knowledge at all; he would, at best, simply be very clever at guessing—that is, as the Creator of these causal mechanisms and their properties, he would simply be extremely apt at predicting their outcomes. But until he has experiential knowledge of those outcomes, until he crosses the phenomenal threshold of effects emanating from their causes, I do not see how it can be said he knows them.

Unless that is indeed what you mean by 'perfect knowledge'—an infallible guess.

You might reread what I said, I agreed that God is not bound by time. I merely put forth that even if He is, He would still have perfect knowledge. This might take the form of "an infallible guess." But an infallible guess is equivalent to perfect knowledge.

 

[docrob57]

Not to worry Doc I am aware that you don't believe in them. Flip a coin kind of stuff! Little decisions that you are not that vested in. What route do I take to work when they are both the same distance? Do I go to Taco Bell of Burger King? The kind of split second decisions that you make a hundred times a day for no particular reason. You seem to think there is a cause behind, at least, most of them. I think I just choose one way or the other because I do.

Okay, so what we need to look at is whether there really is mo particular reason behind these decisions. Lets take Taco Bell v Burger King. Let's say they are equidistant and cost the same. The obvious choice is Taco Bell . But let's say the past 15 times you have chosen Taco Bell. What do you think you would choose now? Why?

 

[Yorzhik]

Not directly, it would appear. But can you demonstrate any logical flaws in that argument?

I agree, Balder, that this is the best argument against the OV position. The difference is that a God that knows the future exhaustively and free will are mutually exclusive. How we can get here given we don't know God's complete past is merely an unknown (I say "merely" not because this argument against the OV position isn't a good one, but as a comparative discription relative to the problems of the CV postion).

The problem is that we have to chose. There is no third option. Either the future is opened or close.

 

[Yorzhik]

Precisely. And if God is presumed to have an infinite history prior to making the world, then he never could have made the world because that history wouldn't have been exhausted yet.

And yet here we are.

So....?

I agree. I am of the opinion that God did exist in eternity past. But I don't know what that would mean.

 

[Delmar]

You might reread what I said, I agreed that God is not bound by time. I merely put forth that even if He is, He would still have perfect knowledge. This might take the form of "an infallible guess." But an infallible guess is equivalent to perfect knowledge.

I don't even stipulate to the term "bound by time"! I just don't believe that things happen before they happen.

 

[Balder]

I agree. I am of the opinion that God did exist in eternity past. But I don't know what that would mean.

One thing it could mean: that we are here at all indicates the stamp of the eternal in us.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The problem is that we have to chose. There is no third option. Either the future is opened or close.

It is evident from the words of the Lord Jesus that the future is open.Even though He had come down to earth to die for the sins of His people could pray to the Father that that cup may pass from Him:

"O My Father,if it be possible,let this cup pass from Me"(Mt.26:39).

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[docrob57]

It is evident from the words of the Lord Jesus that the future is open.Even though He had come down to earth to die for the sins of His people could pray to the Father that that cup may pass from Him:

"O My Father,if it be possible,let this cup pass from Me"(Mt.26:39).

In His grace,--Jerry

39 He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will."

If we look at the whole verse, isn't this just Jesus, speaking from His humanity, expressing His trepidation concerning what was about to come, yet acknowledging its certainty?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If we look at the whole verse, isn't this just Jesus, speaking from His humanity, expressing His trepidation concerning what was about to come, yet acknowledging its certainty?

How could anyone say that the Lord Jesus was acknowledging the certainity of His death while at the same time asking the Father to let Him escape if it was possible?

In other words,the Lord Jesus found nothing in the prophecies concerning His suffering to hinder Him from praying to the Father that if it were possible to let that cup pass from Him.With Him the necessity to drink of the cup arose not from any irrevocable edict of the past but instead from the will of a present Living God.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[docrob57]

How could anyone say that the Lord Jesus was acknowledging the certainity of His death while at the same time asking the Father to let Him escape if it was possible?

In other words,the Lord Jesus found nothing in the prophecies concerning His suffering to hinder Him from praying to the Father that if it were possible to let that cup pass from Him.With Him the necessity to drink of the cup arose not from any irrevocable edict of the past but instead from the will of a present Living God.

In His grace,--Jerry

Well, that is one way of looking at it I suppose. I have never seen that particular passage portrayed that way. But that doesn't make it wrong.

In any event, if anyone would like to rejoin the discussion concerning the role of "randomness," I am here and ready to take on all comers.

 

[Balder]

Well, that is one way of looking at it I suppose. I have never seen that particular passage portrayed that way. But that doesn't make it wrong.

In any event, if anyone would like to rejoin the discussion concerning the role of "randomness," I am here and ready to take on all comers.

Since the "comers" you invited aren't tripping over themselves to get here, apparently, I'll chime in:

What do you think of the issue I raised about linear time, with regard not only to the challenge it may raise to the OV understanding of God, but also to the "absoluteness" of causality?

 

[docrob57]

Since the "comers" you invited aren't tripping over themselves to get here, apparently, I'll chime in:

What do you think of the issue I raised about linear time, with regard not only to the challenge it may raise to the OV understanding of God, but also to the "absoluteness" of causality?

I admit I don't quite understand Bald-man, maybe flesh out your idea a little more.

 

[Balder]

I admit I don't quite understand Bald-man, maybe flesh out your idea a little more.

Baldman? Tell your avatar to look in the mirror!

And remember what happened to some other folks who called someone "baldy"...

 

[docrob57]

Baldman? Tell your avatar to look in the mirror!

And remember what happened to some other folks who called someone "baldy"...

A . . the person in the avatar is Adlai Stevenson
B . . Bald-man was a term of respect and admiration :banana: