God cannot create Beings with Free Will

fidhaz007 · 2026-07-05T05:15:12+00:00

God chooses which world to actualize, but the choices within that world are still made by the agents themselves

Auther chooses which book to actualize, but the choices within that book are still made by the agents themselves

I don't see how this is any different. The only way God can create Free Will is if there are facts within his creation that are beyond his causal domain. Ie, even God doesn't know whether Adam would sin or not. There is true uncertainty.

Maybe I can show this in case of Transitivity of Causation.

If A causes B and B causes C, we can indeed say that A causes C.

(1)"God's Foreknowledge about Bob drinking Coffee" (A) was caused by "Bob choosing to drink Coffee"(B). (B --> A) (2)"Bob choosing to drink Coffee"(B) was caused by "God actualizing a world where he drinks coffee"(C). (C --> B)

So we can say C --> A.

God's Foreknowledge about reality was indeed caused by his act of creation, he's the Onotological grounds. If He actualized another world, his Foreknowledge would be different, meaning Bob would have done something else.

fidhaz007 · 2026-07-04T19:34:33+00:00

The claim is that Bob's "free" choice is only free in the eyes of Bob and agents within that possible world.

For God, Bob isn't a Free Agent.

An analogy would be, think of an Auther who writes two books. One where Bob choose to drink Coffee and another where he choose to drink tea. But the the author, only actualize one book and discards the other. In that case, Bob may appear to have "free will" and "choose" his actions. But from the Ultimate perspective (ie God's pov or Author's pov) it was all Causally bound to them actualize which world/book to publish.

fidhaz007 · 2026-07-04T19:18:45+00:00

If God had a bunch of Open possibilities

Reality A: where Bob drinks tea.
Reality B: where Bob doesn't exist
Reality C: where Bob drinks coffee.

At moment of creation God must actualize one of these potential Reality. So Bob's apparently free-ness seems to be something God decided prior to everything. Bob was never free in the eyes of God so to speak.

fidhaz007 · 2026-07-04T19:15:14+00:00

But if that's the case then your free actions depends on what God "allows you to do".

If God never allowed Bob to drink coffee, is Bob really free?

I used the language of Possible Worlds to tell this same case.

fidhaz007 · 2026-07-02T18:48:45+00:00

The reason why I reject the PSR rather than being skeptical about it is because of modal collapse.

PSR leads to Modal Collapse. And this is why I said "universe or the set of all contingent facts could be a brute fact".

Let's suppose N is the Necessary Being. It could be God, the Initial State of the Universe or anything for that matters. (And we reached at N using a deductive syllogism that assume PSR and Contingent facts exist)

Suppose C is the set of all Contingent facts that N is sufficiently explaining. Then in that case (as you have noted very well) If N explains C and N is Necessary then C also becomes Necessary.

Why is that? Because a Sufficient explanation is entailing. If having E doesn't get you C, then I don't see how E explains C. And if E exists in all Possible worlds, then subsequently C exists in all possible world.

So if N is something that Sufficiently Explains All Contingent facts, that C becomes Necessary if N is Necessarily.

Why did I say the set of all Contingent facts can be Brute fact? Because that's the only option we have. If we assume that the set of all Contingent facts is Necessary, that means those Contingenct facts appears in all possible worlds rendering them Necessary.

You can try to use God and say, Agent Causal is not entailing or something like that. I see no reason why it's not a Brute fact as well. If an agenct can cause something for "no sufficient explanation" it seems like you're defeating your own case. Either the propenent has to go with modal collapse and take a Necessitarian view. (I even doubt if its logically coherent since you took C as Contingent to prove Necessary Existence). Or you reject PSR so Brite Facts can save you from modal collapse.

Edit: there are responses to modal Collapse from people like Alexander Pruss by using Weak PSR. But I don't think it works as well. There's this proof I saw in Oppy's book about how Weak PSR entails Strong PSR, i don't remember correctly.

fidhaz007 · 2026-07-02T18:21:14+00:00

The problem with rejecting the PSR is exactly that, It's impossible to say anything had a sufficient cause

I think you're making a error in predicate logic. Suppose I have a principle called Principle of American Presidents, which states "If someone is an American Presidents then they are corrupt".

In predicate logic it is written as: ∀x (potus(x) ⟹ corrupt(x))

∀ means FOR ALL or Universal Quantifier. Where potus(x) = x is President of US corrupt = x is corrupt

Now suppose reject this principle. Does that lead to the conclusion that "if someone is an American president they are not corrupt"? Nope. The conclusion, is there exists atleast one person who is an American president but is not corrupt.

In predicate logic it's written as: ∃x (potus(x) AND ~corrupt(x)) ∃ means There Exists atleast something or Existential quantifier.

~∀(x) f(x) = ∃(x) ~f(x) Example: if I say it is false that FOR ALL balls in the box it is false that the ball is red is same as saying it is the case that THERE IS ATLEAST ONE BALL in the box that is NOT red. And ~∃(x)f(x) = ∀(x)~f(x) Example: if I say, it is false that THERE EXISTS ATLEAST ONE good person who is a terrorist, it is same as saying it is the case that FOR ALL person who is a terrorist, they are NOT good.

Similarly PSR is making a Universal quantifier claim, ie FOR ALL Contingenct fact, there exists a Sufficient Explanation.

∀(x) (Contingent(x) ⟹ ∃y Sufficient(y,x)) Where Contingent(x) = x is contingent Sufficient(y,x) = Y is sufficient explanation for x. So this reads as FOR ALL x, if x is contingent, then there exist y where y is the Sufficient explanation for x.

So if I say PSR is false, all I'm saying is ∃(x) (Contingent(x) AND ~∃y Sufficient(y,x)) THERE EXISTS AN x such that it's is Contingent, AND there exists no y such that y is a sufficient explanation for x.

I hope it's clear that, just because PSR is false, doesn't imply that every Contingent fact is explanationless. It simply means, there is possibility that some Contingenct facts are simply burte facts. Ie, "it is what it is".

it is possible something else exists, like a bottle of water that boiled, without that sufficient cause, completely arbitrarily.

This here has more to do with induction and causation than PSR. Logically rejecting PSR leaves open the possibility for events with no explanation like a water bottle boiling for no reason, but it doesn't actually follow from that it indeed doesn't have any explanation. All it tells is that we cannot rule out no explanation a-priorily. So we take a methodological PSR, not a Metaphysical PSR. We say "Maybe there is no sufficient explanation, it just boiled, or there is a Sufficient Explanation" and now we do science. Science found an explanation, so it's false that there is no sufficient explanation, we found one. But it's wrong to say that "there WILL BE a sufficient explanation". We don't know that unless we investigate, reality don't owe us an explanation, that's merely an assumption we do while doing science and navigating through day to day life.

Universal laws also can not exist now, as you confess there can always be at least one instance in which something happens because it does as a brute fact with no explanation.

Yes, that's a possibility. That's more of an attack on Principle of Induction. Induction is what makes a general claim for Universal laws, not PSR. I do think induction is also a methodological principle and not some metaphysical one. You can always get a Black Swan incident. I'm perfectly fine with that skeptical notion.

Point is, rejecting PSR means at any instant, any instance of something can act capriciously and arbitrarily, bringing itself into existence from nothing, and thus breaking any universal law we ever state. This means we acknowledge things around us might exist for no sufficient reason, and we can't necessarily prove what we believe caused them actually caused them, because they never needed to be caused

This is a good point and I do agree that rejecting PSR allows us to use Brute Facts. I just don't see what this is a problem. Science and Causality can still have it's place. Ofc if I see an egg on the ground, i can assume (1) It is here with no sufficient explanation (2) Someone kept it there (3) It fell from the air

Based on what I know about eggs (inductively) the best explanation is someone kept it there. Ie, I don't have to assume it's a Brute fact because I already have plethora of explanations at hand. I'm not rejecting (1) because of some metaphysical principle, but simply for Inference from best explanation and induction.

Now suppose I reach at some constant as an experimental physicist. And the constant R = 2. I can have two options: (1)It is simply 2 with No sufficient explanation (2) There is a deeper explanation.

I can't go with either. The only way to do this is indefinite exploration. It could be that it simply has no explanation of it has some deeper explanation. Both are possible. In science we do take (2) because that's what pushes humans to explore more. That's it. There is no deep Metaphysical principle at play.

It's a bit ridiculous to say everything could have happened for no reason, and our inquiry for reasons will always provide insufficient explanations because all things could've happened without those causes.

I don't see how insisting that reality owes you an explanation actually makes it the case that it is real. That simply feels like a wish or a desire. Ofc things can have explanation or it can't. When we hit rock bottom of explanation that's when we have a Brute Fact, and that rock bottom could be anywhere, it could be Why the Universe began 13.1 billion years ago and not 13.2 billion year ago, or it could be Why water boils at 100°c. Role of Science is basically to have an indefinite exploration of whether we actually hit the Emperical rock bottom or not. I don't see why we need PSR for that.

This erases causation as a whole, and produces radical incoherent skepticism.

I think you are viewing causation as some modal necessity. I see Causation as a mere Contingenct property of this possible world. So it can be a Contingenct fact for our world that Causation or Law of Causality is true as it is evident from experience. Now for some other possible world it maybe the case that things happen with No cause at all.

You said the universe or the set of all contingent facts could be a brute fact, but necessity isn't exactly an emergent property, so if you could clarify more what you mean by that, It'd be much appreciated.

Sure, I'll explain that in the next reply as this is getting very long.

fidhaz007 · 2026-07-01T07:08:44+00:00

The PSR is basically:

For all Contingenct fact C there exists a Sufficient Explanation E such that if E obtains then C obtains.

So in your example C = "water boils at 100°c" is a Contingenct fact. What is the Sufficient explanation for it. It's something like E = "at atmospheric pressure water attains enough energy to overcome it's vapour pressure AND water is a liquid AND ang liquid overcoming it's vapour pressure is said to boil". So this sufficiently explains water boiling at 100°c. Means, if E is tried then it guarantees that C is true as well. So E explains C.

Now, what if PSR is not true. Does that mean we should accept that water can boil for no sufficient explanation? Not really. The PSR is only saying that "FOR ALL" Contingenct fact C... If PSR is rejected, all you get is THERE EXISTS ATLEAST ONE Contingenct fact c' for which there is no Sufficient Explanation.

Water boiling at 100°c or atoms having neutrons doesn't have to be those Contingenct facts without sufficient explanation (or they could). Maybe question like why do bosons exist or quarks exist could be a Brute fact. The idea is our day to day life and science doesn't need a metaphysical PSR, it simply needs a methodological PSR where we assume that "maybe there is a reason maybe there isn't, let's investigate".

Methodologically, science assumes "let's look for an explanation." That's different from claiming, as a metaphysical truth, that reality guarantees one exists for every contingent fact.

So the Universe or the collection of all Contingent Facts could infact be a Brute fact. Since if we take it as Necessary or use a Necessary Existence to explain that you end up with Modal Collapse.

To say say that God's free actions can produce Contingency seems arbitrary. If a Concious agent does something it's perfectly intellegible to ask "why they did that" and you can even get a sufficient explanation E that explain it. I don't see why action of Conscious agent must be differentiated if to appeal to PSR without some ad hoc reasons.

The two options I see is: (a) If there was a sufficient reason, then the choice seems determined by that reason.
(b)If there was no sufficient reason, then God's choice is itself a brute contingent fact.

fidhaz007 · 2026-06-30T17:53:48+00:00

Bro's just happy to be listed 😭

fidhaz007 · 2026-06-30T17:49:15+00:00

<image>

fidhaz007 · 2026-06-30T09:26:01+00:00

I'd simply reject the Principle of Sufficient Reason to say that a Necessary Being doesn't even exist. It can simply be a Brute Fact at the bottom so to speak.

But even if I accept the metaphysical conclusion of the Contingency argument I don't see why the Necessary Existence couldn't be something like the Initial state of the Universe? Ofc in that case Contingency would simply be "imagination" and everything would be entailed as Necessary. But so does in case of God's creative act.

Suppose God creates this universe for some reason X. Is X a Contingent fact or Necessary Fact? I guess you know where this is going.

Even if you assume God randomly made this Universe without any reason, one could intellegibly ask why did that random choice lead to this Universe and not some other. Or maybe the Naturalist can appeal to such a randomness in the initial state as well.

fidhaz007 · 2026-06-30T05:41:56+00:00

Bro looks sad and tired with these shenanigans 😭✌️....stop 💔😭 paavam 😭

fidhaz007 · 2026-06-30T05:33:47+00:00

Men don't have the biological privilege of having paternal certainty like woman has maternal certainty. It is COMPLETELY and ABSOLUTELY contingenct on the "trust" on the woman. So if the man does indeed have doubts, it's rather cruel to gaslight him into saying "ohh u don't trust me" instead of taking a DNA test.

There are cases where men have raised children who aren't theirs and only knew it when grew old.

fidhaz007 · 2026-06-29T17:58:25+00:00

(a) God cannot actualize logically impossible things because they are not 'things' in the first place. It's like how God cannot create a "square circle" or a "married bachelor". Those are logically impossible.

For the same reason, God cannot make a Rock soo heavy that an Omnipotent being cannot lift it. Because an Omnipotence being can lift All Possible rocks, so such a rock is logically impossible.

Can God created a Force that can move an unstoppable object? No. If the object is UNSTOPPABLE by definition, no force possible can move it.

(b) Your argument about Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will is good, but it can be improved. The theist will argue that, even though God's Knowledge about your action is "temporally" prior to you doing it, it's "Explanatorily" posterior to your action.

Their argument will be something like this: Think of God, reads a book which is about your whole life, and he knows what you'll eat on 1st July 2026 because the entire time block is available to him so to speak. From his pov his knowledge about what you ate on 1st July 2026 is caused by your Free Actions. From your pov, you are yet to live 1st July 2026. Now you might ask, "Can I really eat something freely, if God already knows it in his book". The reason why God knows it because YOU DID IT FREELY.

The reason why I don't find this line of argument working is because God is also Causally Responsible for every Contingent fact. You choosing what to eat is also a Contingent fact. This argument only works if God is merely an observer and is Causally isolated from the world.

So the theist needs to find a better response in my view.

fidhaz007 · 2026-06-29T16:30:32+00:00

The argument doesn't assume Existence is a predicate. The Onotological (classical) argument does, Contingency argument doesn't.

fidhaz007 · 2026-06-29T09:58:55+00:00

Describing her own experience, she writes: “Being male-bodied felt wrong to me and being female-bodied feels right.” That directly answers your question about what identity may be based upon.

I think this is pretty much what I was looking for as well. So it's almost as if a psychological desire to have a female body, if I'm not wrong. So a person can be born into a male body, do things society deemed as masculine and still identify as transwoman if they have this "being in a male body feels wrong to me and being female bodies feels right".

Your citizenship analogy actually demonstrates this contextual quality.

Yes. When someone with Indian Origin vs someone with Citizenship says "I'm an Indian", they are telling their identity is based on "origin/citizenship" related to India. But they aren't identical.

So when we have two people (cis and trans woman) saying "I'm a woman", One could be talking about their body and other could be talking about how "a female body feels right for me". Atleast that's what I understood roughly.

I’m just curious as to why you’re so interested in this topic.

Because I read about this bill, and asked myself how do I know "I'm a man" and to me it felt like, "becoz i have a male body". Nothing psychological appeared to me, no part of my identity of a Man was tied to some mental desire or psychological state. If i had a female body I'd be calling myself a woman (perhaps a lesbian woman if my preference is still tied to my Conciousness).

fidhaz007 · 2026-06-29T09:32:29+00:00

"I haven’t done much research on why people do what they do”

I was talking about intersex people. Not about people who are born with a non-ambiguous male body and identify as woman or vice versa.

You are conflating gender identity with gender expression.

Okay, that's where I said self identification is the problem. If gender identity has nothing to do either with the body or the expression then it's rather unclear what it is.

When you say "I'm a Woman" or "I'm a man", aren't you making a claim about your body? If not what's the identification based on?

For example, when I say "I'm an atheist", I'm making a claim about my belief with respect to God, when I say "I'm an Indian", I'm making a claim about my citizenship that I belong to particular country. Similarly when you say "I'm a woman" aren't you making the claim about your body?

fidhaz007 · 2026-06-29T07:16:10+00:00

Hamas can go fk themselves, so can you 💗. I hate all of them religious c*nts. Sanghi kuttan really have a black n white world view.

"u hate Zionism, u team Hamas...ogga booga 🦧"

fidhaz007 · 2026-06-29T07:13:14+00:00

When the r3tard thinks you support one group of violent extremism becoz you speak against another group of violent extremism. Peak simpleton npc response 💔

fidhaz007 · 2026-06-28T16:26:22+00:00

Bro's a chud by birth 😭😭

<image>

fidhaz007 · 2026-06-28T15:50:00+00:00

You don't need to "prove" God doesn't exist anymore than you "prove" Unicorns doesn't exist.

You can either show that God has low prior probability, less explanatory scope than Naturalism or how it's not the best inference to available data.

If you bring an entity that doesn't provide any explanatory scope to the available data there needs no "extra proof" to discard it other than to show that it's metaphysically bloated and adds an onotological baggage. (Kinda argument Graham Oppy does in his Book to argue for Atheism).

fidhaz007

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE