Welcome to Gaia! ::

In another thread, I saw someone mention that if God already knows your fate, does that negate the notion of free will? I think it was chaoticpuppet who said so, but I may be wrong. This is the kind of thing I've pondered before, but now I'd like to share a different way in which I've pondered this question.

I am a believer that people are distinct individuals, with distinct characteristic natures that form the basis of their personhoods. Now, I am going to try and say this in a way that can be understood (though I will likely fail): if a person is of a particular nature, won't their every action be reflective of their nature, and basically their paths predetermined?

For example, because of the nature of water, we can predict how it will "flow" in given circumstances. It'll freeze and boil under certain conditions, and will flow down any drain or available crevice, by virtue of its nature. Water's chemical interactions will be consistent and predictable because its nature is constant. Is it the same with humans? By virtue of a person's nature, will their every choice, action, and response (emotional, mental, whatever) follow a particular law in accord with their nature?

It could be said that a person's nature can be influenced by environmental factors, and therefore is not constant, but won't any outside influence manifest itself in accord with the essential nature of the person in question? Though two people may go through the same situation, and that situation could be said to "change" them both, they will change in ways particular to their natures.

Does water have free will? I would say no. Per its nature, it will respond to circumstances, randomly occuring or not, in a predictable way. It's like an equation: water is always the SAME variable, that might produce a number of DIFFERENT outcomes/responses, given the circumstances of the equation it's plugged into. Is it the same for people? It's a lot harder to fully define the nature of a person than it is to define the nature of water, but nonetheless is a person any different from water, in the sense that all "choices" are just intrinsic responses derived from one's essential nature? Even if you read this, and decide to do something random and out of character to disprove what is written here, isn't the fact that you responded in such a way to what I've written just demonstrative of your nature?

Even if a person is not controlled by force, that does not require that all that they do is not predestined - if not by God, then by their own self. I don't know if the only alternative to free will is enslavement, or if the only alternative to total enslavement is free will. Perhaps some middle ground. I don't know if people are free in the sense that they can act totally random; they are free to act within the accord of their own natures. But this can still mean that all that they do is outlined in a fate of sorts, even if you do not believe in a "supernatural" kind of fate.

In short, I guess I believe in a free will of sorts, in that you are free to act in accord with who you are. Nonetheless, if you could really see yourself and the whole of your being, you could plug yourself into any equation/situation, and your fate/outcome would be obvious and certain, given that all of the variables are visible and understood.

On what basis do you make the choices though? Just freely and unrestrictedly, or aren't your choices restricted to that which your intrinsic nature would dictate?

Not to argue that there IS an all-powerful being that has predetermined everything, but even knowing in advance what will happen is not equal to experiencing it. It's like me never wanting to go on a rollercoaster, or seeing the same movie twice, because I know full well how things will play out (and if the movie explodes my DVD player, or if the rollercoaster flies off the track, you can bet I'll be more upset than if the two experiences played out as I assumed they would). Understanding or "knowing" something in principle is not the same as knowing it in application.

It's like, even if the script is there, it still needs to be played out to elucidate the real depth of things.

Knowing that there are pyramids in Egypt is not necessarily as awe-inspiring as actually going to see them, even though you already know you will go through the motions of 1) go to airport and take the plane 2) go to hotel 3) eat lunch 4) whatever other thing you need to do in advance (sleep off the jet lag, whatever) 5) go to pyramids.

I don't know if I explained this properly, but maybe someone got the jist of it. An experience without application lacks soul. The experience must be actualized in order for the non-rational parts of it to be known, i.e. the emotional aspects, and the spiritual aspects. You can know in a technical way how things will go, but that still leaves a lot of experiential knowledge missing.

Furthermore, predetermination does not require that every detail be plotted out to the extent of which color socks you wear this morning. Rather, predetermination could operate in the sense that events are determined to occur somewhere within a certain parameter, like rolling a die. I can do 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6... but that's all the wiggle room I have.

I just noticed this and thus did not get to comment about it in my last post and I don't feel like editing it, so here we go.

This dichotomy of the term 'knowing' is one that always seems to present itself in this question. The thing is, if we assume (as my question does), that this all powerful being who happens to be the Creator, then this dichotomy is useless once put upon this Creator.

If there is a difference between knowing the principle and knowing it in application, as you put it; then it either this Creator knows both or doesn't. If the Creator doesn't know both, then the Creator is not omniscient; since they are no longer holding all knowledge. If the Creator does know both, then they are omniscient as they still hold all knowledge.

So, under my assumptions for this question, this all powerful Creator has both knowledges, seeing as I am assuming him to be omniscient.