Maybe its not an error....but I think it is...anyways it might be interesting to discuss.

In another thread EvilSteve wrote:

Here are some questions for EvilSteve(and whoever else wants to answer):

If God exists and has free will, is his freewill dependent on an element of randomness?

If God's freewill doesn't require an element of randomness, what's to prevent him from creating a being who has freewill which also doesn't depend on randomness?

If God's freewill requires an element of randomness, like EvilSteve suggests the human free if it exists must have, could one still blame God for any evil that He "allows" to happen in the world?

Then why call him god

edit: a capricious, immaterial, spacless, timeless being sounds more like it

A bunch of processes in the world are intrinsically random, radioactive decay being the most obvious example. Given a radioactive atom you cannot know/predict/calculate when it will decay.

So doesn't that fact alone end all discussion of whether or not there is or isn't randomness in this world? Maybe I'm missing smth.

I like the question, because it shows that you're willing to extend the analysis to your concept of God. That's progress. Usually theists want to explain everything in terms of God, and this always explains exactly nothing because they stop there, leaving the concept of God unexamined. God becomes the conceptual rug under which all the mysteries are swept. "The universe must have a first cause. And that cause is God." Ok but what caused God? If we're going to say God is eternal and has no cause, why couldn't we say the same for the universe, and save a step? All we've done is sweep the mystery of the universe under the God rug. But back to your question.

If God has free will, what would that mean? When applied to humans this usually means we can choose to do good or evil in a given situation. Can God do evil? I think the standard theological answer would be that God's nature requires Him to always do good, or to always maximize good where multiple "good" decisions could be chosen. Maybe He could exercise free will in choosing between two outcomes if both are precisely equal in their goodness? Like in a game of Tic Tac Toe, if I take the center square, God's move could be any of the four corners since they're co-optimal.

Anyway yeah, if God operates deterministically then He would always make the same "choice" in any given situation. So "free will" would require God to be a non-deterministic system in my view. The mind of God would have to exhibit some element of randomness.

Free will can't exist in a deterministic system in my view.

Yup, God's "free choices" would be equally meaningless from a moral standpoint. I think that if you could analyze the system completely, the concept of moral judgment breaks down. Either the system is deterministic, in which case there are no choices, everyone (including God) does what they were predetermined to do. Or there's some randomness, and it makes no sense to judge the randomness either.

If you're a strict determinist - meaning of the kind that leaves no room for free will, then you have no room for randomness either.

That doesn't mean such determinism implies refusal to see something as random however, merely the assumption that displays of randomness are not actually randomness but merely the result of a process that is not yet understood and/or impossible to map due to scale.

Personally I find to take a concept X we don't really know what is, merely what comes of it (or more to the point we know we don't know what comes of it) as proof or falsification of Y - especially when Y is something we can't even define - to be a dubious practice.

I enjoyed reading your response and I think we can nail your error down a bit.

Why would a non-deterministic system require elements of randomness? I understand why you believe that as it is the only way you or I can concieve of a non-deterministic system. Still, just because you or I can't concieve something doesn't mean that something doesn't exist.

Can you prove non-deterministic systems must have random elements?

You cant say god has the ability to choose to do evil but never has and never will.

This would be analogous to me saying that this bird could turn into a bear if it chose to, but it just hasn't ever chose to do so. If the bird had turned into a bear before and turned back into a bird then we could say it can turn into a bear but is choosing not. However we couldn't say it will never do it again.

If you say god can do evil but never has chosen to do so, I can say the same about a bird being able to transform into a bear, it just hasn't ever chosen to do so. And we can do this about everything. So either god can't do evil or he can (b/c he has) and he can do so in the future as well. Hopefully he doesn't decide to do so when Stu is at the pearly gates eh?

I think it a mistake to apply the words "good" and "evil" to the actions of God. Whatever pleases God is good and whatever displeases him is evil. Whatever God has done must have been what God wanted to do and thus pleaseful to Him.

The words "good" and "evil" don't really gain any meaning until we use them describe our own actions and how God is going to judge those actions.

So if god bends you over and starts raping you this is good? I love your logic this is great. So anyone who bends you over is doing a bad thing unless he is all powerful etc and then it's good. And if Hitler was all powerful etc, everything he did would be good, not bad. And if god lost a lil of his power (etc other traits) bending you over would then change back from good to evil?

All I am saying is God is the ultimate decider of what is "good" and what is "evil". When you are the one who ultimately decides what is "good" and what is "evil" everyone else's opinion is irrelevant.

For God to do something evil, God would have to do something which displeases Him. Why would God do anything which displeases him?

Why would Thor wear shoes?

Because it pleases him to do so.

Is this just more word games or are you getting at something here?

A non-deterministic system by definition uses randomness. That is what makes it non-deterministic. If it makes 'choices' in a non-random way, it is deterministic. If it neglects to make any choice, and instead simultaneously makes every choice, creating a 'branch' for each (powerset construction), then it is deterministic. In the case of God this could lead to infinitely many different universes, each one representing a different set of choices.

You mean it pleases Him to do so.

Cant believe I almost let this one slip by. If you were an Atheist for one day and read what you wrote on this forum and knew when you woke up the next day you would be a Christian again you would shoot yourself. Maybe not, but I would.

A non deterministic system is one in which the output cannot be predicted as there are multiple possible outcomes for each input.

When we program computers we use some random element as a seed to determine a particular output cause thats the only way we know how to simulate unpredictable outcomes.

Evilsteve thinks freewill is an illusion...that there must exist some random number generator in each of our heads. Its a matter of faith for him.

Okay, so you postulating a system where every input can be absolutely identical, but produce varying outputs, and the output does not depend on random chance?

However, something with variable outputs given a specific set of inputs is a perfectly satisfactory definition of 'random', so this just seems like a 'can god make a square circle' problem.

I didn't follow the last bit, though it was directed at Evil Steve. I agree that free-will is an illusion, but I do not believe there exist some random number generators in our heads (notwithstanding various quantum phenomena which are highly unlikely to affect any 'decision' we make). Why are these mutually exclusive, they seem internally consistent to me.

Explanation of why free will implies randomness:

If we take a situation in which a being makes a decision, isolate it, and run it out multiple times, one of two things will happen:

1. The being will make the same decision in every trial. If we then do the same thing for every decision ever made, and every time the being never makes a different decision, free will essentially does not exist (free will only matters if it is exercised). In order for free will to exist, or at least matter, somebody somewhere along the line must have made a different decision.

2. The being will make different decisions during different trials. This is the case in which free will exists. However, since every variable is held constant, and we arrive at different results for different trials, there must exist some level of randomness in determining the result of the trial.

I write lots of things that arn't exactly palatable for Christians. Then I turn around and write lots to things that arn't exactly palatable for atheists either.

I think most Christians are almost as silly as most atheists.