Does god have free will?

One of the many recurring theme I've seen about god is that god is forever unchanging. Another way you could put it is that god is limited to what it has done before and what it can do according to the bible. It is predictable.This really sounds to me like god has no free will.Free will is something that us humans say we all have, that it is the thing that, some christians say, the thing that ultimately will determine who goes to hell and who goes to heaven.So, does god has free will or not? If good comes from god's very nature and god is forever unchanging because it cannot contradict its own nature, then it really really sounds to me like god has no free will.This message has been edited by GAW-Snow, 09-02-2005 11:14 AM

---

My favorite quotes of the week.I'd sooner let John Couey, C-O-U-E-Y, who raped and buried alive little Jessica, I'd sooner let him adopt kids, than turn them over to the fags and dykes! That clear enough for ya? --Fred PhelpsYeah, I used to question but I strive to be wise, a questioning philosopher isn't wise, a hard laborer that perhaps lacks education and only has a few simplistic beliefs but does not question those beliefs is wise. -- Guess who

Thanx for answering.If I was a christian, I would believe that god has free will, too. However, if you take the fundie point of view, it would appear that god has no free will and exists within this box that the fundies have created.

This thread is meant to allow GN and other fundies to show me how god can be good, unchangeble, and have free will at the same time. Your chance to make me look like a dumbarse.

Um... that's not free will at all. It's like saying you have free will to choose whatever foreign language class you want as long as you only take French.By the way, that's exactly what my parents said to me.Someone shoot me in the head! Either GN doesn't know what's going on or he's making stuff up as he goes along.

I use Kant's definition of free will, which is the ability to resist natural temptation. This is something that god seems to lack in the old testiment. Well, there have been cases where people willingly starved to the point of near death or even death. I'd call that free will.Since your god is all good and can only do things that are currently defined as good, I must conclude that it has no free will because it is incapable of acting against its nature.

I don't have the same patience as Ned and some other members here. You've completely missed the point and I'm not going to tell you what. The other members here can tell you what's wrong with your answer or you can figure it out yourself. I'm tired to have to repeat myself over and over.

The flood, for example, was a demonstration of god's lack for free will. It was angry at humans so it wiped out everything, then regreted later on. I don't know if you are dodging the point on purpose or accidentally. Either way, it would seem that you have a very short term memory. Here, let me quote myself. Are you trying to tell me that god's nature is really bad and it is able to resist doing bad?According to Kant's explanation, humans have free will because, even though our nature is to eat when we are hungry and the food is available, we are free to choose not to eat and starve.Ok, let me repeat myself again. According to you, god's nature is good. Since, according to you, god is unchangeble, meaning everything it does and commands is always good no matter what, then god is incapable of doing bad or being bad. Since god is incapable of doing bad or being bad, then according to Kant's definition of free will, god has no free will.Never mind with Kant's definition of free will. What's your definition of free will? Can you come up with one that says god is incapable of change and has free will at the same time?Added by edit:Just for the remote possibility that you still don't understand Kant's definition, let me try to make it clearer. Kant's definition of free will has nothing to do with bad or good. For example, according to Kant, a wild tiger has free will IFF there is a helpless little deer sitting there and the tiger is both hungry and capable of killing and eating the deer but refuses to do so for one reason or other. It is definitely against its nature that the tiger doesn't proceed and eat the deer.Another example of free will, according to Kant, is a mother duck completely abandons her ducklings for no reason. This is free will because her nature is to take care of her ducklings.This message has been edited by Lam, 10-05-2004 02:54 PM

Before anything, let me make it clear that I am not attacking you or anything. I just want to make something clear. Kant criticized this definition of free will for obvious reasons... for me at least.Say that we have a tiger and there are 2 deers near by. The tiger is fully capable of bringing either one of them down. What we observe in nature is that predators will almost always go after the prey that appears to be the most vulnerable. In this case, the tiger will make a choice to go after the weaker of the 2 deers.Now, you could argue that the tiger knows not the difference and is only acting on its instinct. However, the fact remains that by going after the weaker of the 2 deers the tiger significantly increases its chance of getting a meal and significantly decreases its chance of going hungry. I'd call that awareness and understanding of the situation, wouldn't you?Kant pointed out that such a definition as yours is too broad and wouldn't necessarily only stand up to the test. We know, from human common sense, that the tiger has no free will. It has no intelligence in that matter. However, if we supperimpose your definition into what we observe in nature, we will find many cases where it would appear that animal do have free will just like we do.Now, let's get back on the subject. Can you explain to me, based on your definition, how god is absolutely incapable of change (whether it wants it or not) and have free will at the same time?

Ok, so in other words, god has free will but it is not all powerful. It is, as you said yourself, "limited" to its own nature and nothing more.By the way, when we talk about nature in the terms that we are using (philosophical terms), we are not using it in context of physical capability. We are using it in terms of mental capability.However, even if we use your way of defining it, then god really is not all powerful and all knowing. It is... limited. Well, think of it this way. My rights are being taken away and my life is in danger from people like you. In return, you get a few immature words from me. Which is worse?Added by edit:Sorry for adding something in, but I'm too paranoid to think that you'd be able to understand what I mean from what I wrote above. History stuff.Your argument of physical limits is not generally accepted by people when we refer to free will. To most people, free will is something that is constrained within physical limits.If god is capable of change but he is mentally incapable of change, then technically I don't see any free will there.Your use of humans not being able to fly is a false analogy. Free will has nothing to do with our anatomical or physical limits.I'm sorry to say, but I'm getting the feeling that you are not treating me seriously. It really sounds like you're trying to reenforce your belief of god is good and been making things up as you go along to justify your beliefs. You've been using everything from trying to blame difference in definition to false analogy.Please stop and give me clear concise answers. Otherwise, I'm quitting this debate as it is going nowhere.This message has been edited by Lam, 10-06-2004 10:54 AM

How do you know that the tiger wasn't self aware of its decision to go after the weaker deer? Did it tell you? Did it tell you that it wasn't thinking what it was thinking?

I actually remember the conversation, now that you've mentioned it.My point has been that self-awareness doesn't mean free will, by our common conception of free will.

This kinda defeats the answer originally given by GN. If god CAN but WON'T contradict his nature, then it implies that good and evil is seperate from god. Remember that GN's original answer is anything done by god at all, even if it's commanding you to take a knife and murder all your family members, is good because god IS good. GN also said that god is unchangable therefore it must always be good.This goes back to the original question in another thread. Is something good because god says it's good or does god says it's good because it is good within itself?If god is good, then everything he says must be good. Read the entire thread and you will see that this leads very quickly to the notion that god has no free will. If god says it's good because it's good in itself, then the good exists outside of god's own self. This implies that god is not all powerful and omnipotent.It's not a question of will god do it or not. It's a question of is god capable or not. Again, this contradicts GN. If god CAN choose evil, then the good exists completely independent of god. This is why GN has been so desperate to come up with excuses to justify his answer, that god is good. Well, let just say that up-to-date I have dated more girls than I can remember. You are not forgiven, since there's nothing to forgive in the first place.

Very interesting thread. I can't believe I completely missed it till now.The pattern I am picking up among fundies is that they want to have both the cake and the pie, even though there's only enough material to make either a cake or a pie.Chuck, are you a skeptic?

You are missing the damn point. Answer me this question. Is god all good or is the good seperate from god.You said that god chooses good always. This means that he COULD choose evil if he wanted too. If this is the case, then god isn't all good, as GN said before. You are missing the point. In GN's own words, if god ordered him to murder his family, he would have done it because it is good to do so because god ordered him too. I was talking to him in this sense. According to GN, god is always good no matter what. Read the whole freaking thread. Honestly, have you ever taken a logic class? Which is completely off-topic, if you want to take what you've learned from logic into account. Huh?

I think it's pretty darn obvious by now.