A flaw with God.

Binomate

I was recently in a discussion with someone who basically claimed God was all knowing and that he knew our future. It is also my understanding that christians at least (not sure about other religions), believe that God gave them free will.

How can God be all knowing and at the same time how can we have free will? Let's imagine that this point in time is stationary. It's represented by t(0). In saying that we have free will you are saying that nothing exists beyond t(0). In saying this, God can not know what is beyond t(0) therefore he is not all knowing.

If God knows everything, then god knows what will happen at t(1) where t(1) is a point in the future. Let's say we make a choice at t(0) that brings us to the result at t(1). At t(0) God knew there was an outcome and what the outcome was, therefore we don't have free will.

Does this make sense?

The thread title should be "One of the many flaws with God".

Maccattack

'You poor misguided fool. You will never understand the mind of our lord. For that I pity you'

... or something like that.

Playboy

Just because God knows what we are going to do doesnt mean that we dont have the freedom to choose.

Sangre

Yes it does because he made us, knowing the choices we would make.

Tabnabs

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh".
--Voltaire

Maccattack

so god knows what we are going to choose

hmmm

Ive just decided that my existence is pointless.

Binomate

If God is all knowing, and if God knows that point x will happen in the future, then point x will happen in the future and we will make the choices to get to that point x.

singingstranger

I'm with Sangre, whether he actually meant what he said or not (a caveat you learn from the UCD board... ) - apply the logic from the Matrix where everyone had already made their free choices before they enter the sphere where they actually come into play. God is all knowing, he knows what we're going to choose. At t(0) he can accurately predict t(1) because he knows exactly how Person X thinks and what they will choose to do in the situation. Free will + all-knowingness = nice little package.

Playboy

only a problem if u are applying the limited scope of human understanding, concepts and knowledge to try and figure out the motives and mind of an omnipotent being. pointless

Zillah

Playboy wrote:

only a problem if u are applying the limited scope of human understanding, concepts and knowledge to try and figure out the motives and mind of an omnipotent being. pointless

Yes, we are applying the limit of human intelligence to understand the situation. Anything else is fantasy.



Its actually quite an old argument. I've never heard any convincing response, the only responses amount to apparently paradoxical magic or various vague sophistries* that rely on absolutely unprovable assertions about the unknowable nature of God.


*Can you make that word a noun...?

bonkey

Binomate wrote:

How can God be all knowing and at the same time how can we have free will?

There are two possible answers, neither of which are entirely satisfactory.

One could take God's "all-knowing"-ness to mean that all possible outcomes are known. Thus, nothing can occur which God did not know about previously. This is a bit cheeky, because it doesn't suggest God could know which future would be the "real" one (at least, going by our current understanding of what "real" is).

Alternately, one could say that freedom requires a frame of reference. It may be that the universe is deterministic from God's perspective, but non-deterministic from ours...that we can never gain the ability to predict/know outcomes, but that someone in a different frame of reference can. This, however, is also a bit cheeky, as it involves then explaining the notion that we are judged at the end of our mortal days. How can we be judged within a frame of reference where our existence was deterministic???

You can take both arguments further, but the end point will be that you can't really explain it, and the religious will ultimately fall back on the "one of the great mysteries" to do away with a need for an explanation.

Zillah

Wikipedia provides these common responses:

* God can know in advance what I will do, because free will is to be understood only as freedom from coercion, and anything further is an illusion.

AKA, he's not omniscient.

* God can know in advance what I will do, even though free will in the fullest sense of the phrase does exist. God somehow has a "middle knowledge" - that is, knowledge of how free agents will act in any given circumstances.

Doesn't make any sense to me...

* God can know all possibilities. The same way a master chess player is able to anticipate not only one scenario but several and prepare the moves in response to each scenario, God is able to figure all consequences from what I will do next moment, since my options are multiple but still limited.

Then he doesn't know which one of those possibilities I will choose, hence he's not omniscient.

* God chooses to foreknow (and, therefore, predetermine) some things, but not others. This allows a free moral choice on the part of man for those things that God choose not to foreknow. It accomplishes this by attributing to God the ability for Him, Himself, to be a free moral agent with the ability to choose what He will, and will not, foreknow, assuming God exists in linear time (or at least an analogue thereof) where "foreknowledge" is a meaningful concept.

If God chooses to not know something he is no longer omniscient or omnipotent, as there is now an aspect of reality of which he has no knowledge, and therefore no power over.

* It is not possible for a god to know the result of a free human choice. Omniscience should therefore be interpreted to mean "knowledge of everything that can be known". God can know what someone will do, but only by predetermining it; thus, he chooses the extent of human freedom by choosing what (if anything) to know in this way.

AKA not actually omnipotent.

* God stands outside time, and therefore can know everything free agents do, since He does not know these facts "in advance". The free agent's future actions therefore remain continent to himself and others in linear time but are logically necessary to God on account of His infallibly accurate all-encompassing view. This was the solution offered by Thomas Aquinas.

God also created the universe, dictating every aspect of its nature at that time. Cause and effect carries forward until now, and he was completely aware of that cause and effect. Hence, when God created reality he dictated the path of the universe until the end of time.

* Instead of producing a parallel model in God's own infallible mind of the future contingent actions of a free agent (thus suppressing the agent's free will), God encodes his knowledge of the agent's actions in the original action itself.

I have no idea what thats supposed to mean.

Binomate

Interesting.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Just because God knows what we are going to do doesnt mean that we dont have the freedom to choose.

Actually that doesn't make sense when you tack on the idea that God created the universe and everything in it.

I can understand where you are coming from, I once thought the same, that while God knows what we are going to do he doesn't directly influence each choice we make.

The problem is that God, according to Judeo/Christian belief, made everything in one go, including the future. God views everything as one big static universe, with time being simply another dimension. At the instant of creation God made everything that does exist and will exist. So God has already made the future our "choices" are supposed to will make. They were created in the instant of creation.

It is illogical to suppose God created something but did not influence it. He influenced its entire nature by creating it. Therefore it is illogcal to suppose that a future can exist that was not directly influenced by God at the point of creation. Not only does God know the future, but for him to know the future he must have already created the future.

It is not logical then to suppose that we can act outside of influence of God, since the future was created along with everything else at the moment of creation.

It becomes another one of the "God paradoxes," Can God create something but have no influence during its creation, the paradox being that by creating it in the first place he influences it completely.

Its up there with :-
Can God make an object He cannot move or
Can God do something He doesn't know He did

Dades

Then add in the idea that the biblical God gets "angry" at the choices his creations make. Why would you create all the life on the planet only to drown virtually all of it in a flood if you knew the way they were going to act?

The idea is riddled with paradoxes with the problem being the mistake of trying to envisage an omnipotent being, and then applying to it human characteristics which plainly contradict this.

Froot

Playboy wrote:

only a problem if u are applying the limited scope of human understanding, concepts and knowledge to try and figure out the motives and mind of an omnipotent being. pointless

I agree.

Speaking theoretically:

God is outside of our scope of ability...We can understand simpler animals but they cannot understand us. We can barely understand ourselves. So in turn we cannot comprehend God but he can understand us...

That is my way of seeing it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The other way of looking at it is why are people making a point of disbelieving in someone or something instead of just believing in whatever you want...Trying to disprove someone else's belief rather than just accepting thats what people think or just accepting your own view.

I have my own views on life etc but it is not founded on the flaws of other peoples beliefs.

Whenever you ponder your own existence you realise how brutal and sudden life is, we are no different from any other living thing, we are born and we die. Of course its hard to see any sort of plan or pattern.

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

Then add in the idea that the biblical God gets "angry" at the choices his creations make. Why would you create all the life on the planet only to drown virtually all of it in a flood if you knew the way they were going to act?

The idea is riddled with paradoxes with the problem being the mistake of trying to envisage an omnipotent being, and then applying to it human characteristics which plainly contradict this.

Well I think its clear that the authors of the Bible didn't really think through the problems of the concept they were inventing

Zombrex

Froot wrote:

I agree.

Speaking theoretically:

God is outside of our scope of ability...We can understand simpler animals but they cannot understand us. We can barely understand ourselves. So in turn we cannot comprehend God but he can understand us...

Yes but then why spend 4000 years claiming to understand God and what He wants?

The problem is not raised by the paradox presented here, it is raised by the original assertion that we have "free will". Why claim we have free will at all? If we don't understand God at all we don't know if we do or do not have free will.

Beruthiel

Froot wrote:

God is outside of our scope of ability...We can understand simpler animals but they cannot understand us. We can barely understand ourselves. So in turn we cannot comprehend God but he can understand us...

Just because we cannot comprehend something, doesn't mean we should just start making things up to fill in the gaps. God is a gap filler.

Dades

Froot wrote:

The other way of looking at it is why are people making a point of disbelieving in someone or something instead of just believing in whatever you want...Trying to disprove someone else's belief rather than just accepting thats what people think or just accepting your own view.

It's called discussion and its a good way for people to interact and pass the time. Also, nobody is naive enough to expect to 'disprove' anything in this realm.

It's fine to accept someone has a belief as long as their beliefs don't affect you personally. But you can't suggest that religion doesn't regularly poke its nose into our lives. Hence the willingness to engage it in debate.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

It becomes another one of the "God paradoxes," Can God create something but have no influence during its creation, the paradox being that by creating it in the first place he influences it completely.

Its up there with :-
Can God make an object He cannot move or
Can God do something He doesn't know He did

I assume that God can do whatver he wants ... if he wants to wish away a paradox then all he is to do is wish it. Maybe God can rewire our brains so we can understand problems like these. Human logic and reason is our method of understanding the world not God's .. it more than likely has a limited scope of understanding due to biological constraints. God I presume would have quite a unique form of reason or rationality ... As I said earlier, trying to know the mind and motives of an imagined omnipotent being is kinda pointless.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but then why spend 4000 years claiming to understand God and what He wants?

The problem is not raised by the paradox presented here, it is raised by the original assertion that we have "free will". Why claim we have free will at all? If we don't understand God at all we don't know if we do or do not have free will.

People assume that they have free will because human experience is structured in such a way as to give us the impression that we have free will, have the ability to make our own choices and define who we are in this world. It might be just an elaborate illusion but experience does give us the impression that free will exists so its not illogical really to claim that it does.

Fallen Seraph

Well the most obvious answer is that he doesn't exist, so the question in that form is irrelevant.


I'm reasonably sure thought that a question to a similar effect was asked in the context of AI, and some philosopher came up with the solution that determinism (in the sense of someone else knowing your actions before you do them) and free will are not mutually exclusive. Which does actually kinda make sense. Assuming an omniscient and omnipotent being exists, by taking the concept of omnipotence we can say that he's capable of knowing the result of an action without examining the events in between. So by this reasoning he can know what you'll do without examining your motivation or the mechanics of your mind. Thus not mutually exclusive.

Zillah

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Well the most obvious answer is that he doesn't exist, so the question in that form is irrelevant.


I'm reasonably sure thought that a question to a similar effect was asked in the context of AI, and some philosopher came up with the solution that determinism (in the sense of someone else knowing your actions before you do them) and free will are not mutually exclusive. Which does actually kinda make sense. Assuming an omniscient and omnipotent being exists, by taking the concept of omnipotence we can say that he's capable of knowing the result of an action without examining the events in between. So by this reasoning he can know what you'll do without examining your motivation or the mechanics of your mind. Thus not mutually exclusive.

#

Omniscience doesn't neccessarily make free will impossible, but being the creator of the universe and being omniscient does. Cause and effect.

Crucifix

On the subject of trying to understand God's thinking, I'm reminded of this amusing exchange from Malcolm in the Middle:

Dewey: Like Pastor Roy said, how God is so much bigger and wiser than us, and trying to see what He's thinking would be like an ant trying to see what I'm thinking.
Teacher: Yes, exactly. But we can trust in His wisdom, and have faith that He is watching over us.
Dewey: Like me with the anthill in my backyard. I spent days watching the ants, trying to figure out which ones were good, and which ones were bad, but they all just looked like ants, so I started smiting all of them.
Teacher: Well that's not --
Dewey: I was smiting them with the garden hose, and with lighter fluid, and with the lawnmower, and to be perfectly honest, I think I went a little crazy with the shovel. Those ants could have been praying to me all day, I wouldn't have heard them.
*ponders*
Dewey: There was nothing they could do about it.
Teacher: But, I don't think --
Dewey: Really, it's the same with us. There's nothing we can do about anything either, so why worry about it? Hey, this is making me feel better.
Teacher: Well, that's good, but --
Dewey: I guess all we can do is live our lives with as much kindness and decency as possible, and try not to dwell on God standing over us with a giant shovel. Bye!

IFX

Binomate wrote:

I was recently in a discussion with someone who basically claimed God was all knowing and that he knew our future. It is also my understanding that christians at least (not sure about other religions), believe that God gave them free will.

How can God be all knowing and at the same time how can we have free will? Let's imagine that this point in time is stationary. It's represented by t(0). In saying that we have free will you are saying that nothing exists beyond t(0). In saying this, God can not know what is beyond t(0) therefore he is not all knowing.

If God knows everything, then god knows what will happen at t(1) where t(1) is a point in the future. Let's say we make a choice at t(0) that brings us to the result at t(1). At t(0) God knew there was an outcome and what the outcome was, therefore we don't have free will.

Does this make sense?

The thread title should be "One of the many flaws with God".

There is no "free will" in Christianity. It is Christian rhetoric and nothing more.
You are punished and sent to Hell if you don't live up to God's expectations. How can someone be free if they can get punished?

Scofflaw

IFX wrote:

There is no "free will" in Christianity. It is Christian rhetoric and nothing more.
You are punished and sent to Hell if you don't live up to God's expectations. How can someone be free if they can get punished?

Actually, I would define "free" as willing to accept the consequences of your actions. That can, of course, include punishment.

I will propose, for the umpteenth time, and in no great hope of being understood, that one can reconcile free will with omniscience by positing God as able to view all time simultaneously, while we can only move through it sequentially. Our choices are freely made, but from God's point of view they have already been made.

That doesn't change the fact that if God is omniscient, he would be condemning you to eternal damnation for something he knew you would be doing when he created the world. Indeed, from God's perspective, the creation of the world, and your condemnation, were simultaneous.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

I assume that God can do whatver he wants ...

That is the paradox. Can God restrict what He himself can do?

If God can do anything it would be impossible for Him to make it so He can't do something. And if He can't make it so He can't do something then that is something that He can't do.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

People assume that they have free will because human experience is structured in such a way as to give us the impression that we have free will, have the ability to make our own choices and define who we are in this world. It might be just an elaborate illusion but experience does give us the impression that free will exists so its not illogical really to claim that it does.

I'm pretty sure free will does exist, but for it to exist God, as defined by the Judeo/Christian church, must not exist. Which is why I'm also pretty sure God doesn't exist.

art

Froot wrote:

God is outside of our scope of ability...We can understand simpler animals but they cannot understand us.

Interesting point - though it does conjure up to me the fact that no animals go around worshipping us, putting up temples to us, or mumbling over millenia old words in retreat from present day choices...

Then again , some people worship cats so perhaps cats do in fact completely understand us... along with God!

art

Scofflaw wrote:

I will propose, for the umpteenth time, and in no great hope of being understood, that one can reconcile free will with omniscience by positing God as able to view all time simultaneously, while we can only move through it sequentially. Our choices are freely made, but from God's point of view they have already been made.

But put that into the perspective of a believer and the motivation of free will dissipates. Will I steal the apple or not steal it... steal or not steal... ah sod it, what's it matter, I'm already in hell or heaven...

Scofflaw

art wrote:

But put that into the perspective of a believer and the motivation of free will dissipates. Will I steal the apple or not steal it... steal or not steal... ah sod it, what's it matter, I'm already in hell or heaven...

Yes - although I suppose you could say that if you make the "good choice", it shows that you were destined for Heaven - in other words, by choosing the good, you demonstrate that you are good, reaffirming your path to Heaven.

If that were entirely sufficient as a deterrent from evil, religion would not require the very large number of other forms of moral coercion that it does in fact employ. I suspect it's one of the reasons that religion tends to focus more on the freewill aspects than on God's atemporal omniscience.

cordially,
Scofflaw

art

That then is I presume the heart of the contradiction: If God really is omnipotent (in the manner you propose), free will is essentially irrelevant to the believer in that God. But all religion requires free will to authenticate it's own purpose. So, in effect, Religion must oppose the omnipotence of God. Which is what most of the Old Testament does really, giving us the disconcerting image of God as a somewhat cantankerous old git in a white coat conducting experiments on his creations.

Scofflaw

art wrote:

That then is I presume the heart of the contradiction: If God really is omnipotent (in the manner you propose), free will is essentially irrelevant to the believer in that God. But all religion requires free will to authenticate it's own purpose. So, in effect, Religion must oppose the omnipotence of God. Which is what most of the Old Testament does really, giving us the disconcerting image of God as a somewhat cantankerous old git in a white coat conducting experiments on his creations.

I tend to agree. Universalist monotheisms need to be able to claim their God is omnipotent and omniscient, otherwise it looks pretty bad. On the other hand, you don't want the believer thinking too hard about that, so there's a massive set of hedging statements and obfuscation.

Mind you, that's not so much a philosophical paradox as a marketing problem...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

At the risk of simplification "free will" the main theistic excuse given as to why bad things happen to good people. We patently have free-will (leaving aside complex biological/chemical/philosophical arguments) therefore god must have granted it.

So although there may be a paradox between an omniscient god and free will - both are necessary to maintain the illusion. As Scofflaw says - they probably don't want people thinking too hard about it.

pH

I tend to agree with Scofflaw, just because you have free will doesn't necessarily mean that God couldn't look ahead into the future and see what you will do with it.

In one of the Dawkins threads where the radio interview was linked, the guy from the Indo was claiming the opposite as an undisputed fact - *without* God, free will cannot exist.

I would recommend the wiki page and also Dennett's "Freedom evolves"

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

I will propose, for the umpteenth time, and in no great hope of being understood, that one can reconcile free will with omniscience by positing God as able to view all time simultaneously, while we can only move through it sequentially. Our choices are freely made, but from God's point of view they have already been made.

But you're still leaving out that fact that God created the universe knowing full well the consequences of his initial choices. Cause and effect carries on from the dawn of time until now, and God knew that by putting that photon there instead of over there billions of years ago he was making it so that I'd be an atheist and that I'd do X Y and Z. And if he had put it over there then he'd make it so that I was a devout worshipper who turned left instead of right and chose A not B.

As he transcends time, and he created the universe, he therefore dicates 100% of existence from start to finish.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

But you're still leaving out that fact that God created the universe knowing full well the consequences of his initial choices. Cause and effect carries on from the dawn of time until now, and God knew that by putting that photon there instead of over there billions of years ago he was making it so that I'd be an atheist and that I'd do X Y and Z. And if he had put it over there then he'd make it so that I was a devout worshipper who turned left instead of right and chose A not B.

As he transcends time, and he created the universe, he therefore dicates 100% of existence from start to finish.

Hmm, no. God does play dice, let us say - the universe contains genuinely random events.

God does not dictate where this or that photon goes, nor did he do so when he created the universe.That is genuinely random, and so your choices are not constrained by God "setting things up" so that you make choice A rather than B. God observes, he does not dictate.

However, at the point of Creation, God certainly knew that you would choose of your own free will to become an atheist. Given that he nevertheless chose to create anyway, something over which you had no control, I would find that he bears too much responsibility for your choice to make punishment anything but an act of tyranny.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

As I'm pointing out on the Christian forum though, the idea that randomness exists external to God isn't really possible, without contradicting the main western definition of God.

If that were the case it would be

1 - Randomness
2 - God
3- The laws of the universe.

Most Christians will tell you that God has to come first on any list, everything begins and ends with God. To God there is no randomness.

God cannot be contained, enslaved, by any factor, including randomness. Randomness must exist below God, something cannot happen that is external to God. Which is why free will is a paradox. One of the ideas has to be wrong.

Personally I think we do have free will and God doesn't exist. But I probably shouldn't say that too much on the Christian forum.

Anyway, having too parrellel threads is too head wrecking ... everyone move over to the Christian forum

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

As I'm pointing out on the Christian forum though, the idea that randomness exists external to God isn't really possible, without contradicting the main western definition of God.

If that were the case it would be

1 - Randomness
2 - God
3- The laws of the universe.

Most Christians will tell you that God has to come first on any list, everything begins and ends with God. To God there is no randomness.

As I've said on the other thread, I can't see why there's a conflict between God and randomness. If He chooses to create randomness, he has the power to do so - He just doesn't have to accept the results.

Wicknight wrote:

God cannot be contained, enslaved, by any factor, including randomness. Randomness must exist below God, something cannot happen that is external to God. Which is why free will is a paradox. One of the ideas has to be wrong.

Personally I think we do have free will and God doesn't exist. But I probably shouldn't say that too much on the Christian forum.

Anyway, having too parrellel threads is too head wrecking ... everyone move over to the Christian forum

True that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

If there is anything truly random in the universe then God is not omniscient.

Me: God, when will particle X decay?
God: I don't know.

Not omniscient. Hence freewill is only possible in a universe where God is not omniscient.

Zombrex

Zillah wrote:

If there is anything truly random in the universe then God is not omniscient.

Me: God, when will particle X decay?
God: I don't know.

Not omniscient. Hence freewill is only possible in a universe where God is not omniscient.

Or to put it another way

Me: God, when will particle X decay?
God: I haven't decided yet

Not only is there no randomness from Gods viewpoint, but there are no external factors effecting anything either, since nothing can be external from God.

pH

Zillah wrote:

If there is anything truly random in the universe then God is not omniscient.

Me: God, when will particle X decay?
God: I don't know.

Not omniscient. Hence freewill is only possible in a universe where God is not omniscient.

What's randomness got to do with free will?

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

If there is anything truly random in the universe then God is not omniscient.

Me: God, when will particle X decay?
God: I don't know.

Not omniscient. Hence freewill is only possible in a universe where God is not omniscient.

Sigh.

Me: God, when will particle X decay?
God: next Tuesday.
Me: when did you decide that?
God: I didn't - nuclear decay is random.
Me: how do you know then?
God: because I can see next Tuesday.
Me: where is it then?
God: 5 days out along the time axis.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Froot

The Atheist wrote:

It's called discussion and its a good way for people to interact and pass the time.

I did not speak condescendingly, I would ask the same of you.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I never voiced my view on god or religion so dont assume that I am disagreeing with any of you.

To me it is quite obvious that the entire existence of god is simply a form of controlling the masses. Organised religion is one of the greatest management feats in the history of the world.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Me: when did you decide that?
God: I didn't - nuclear decay is random.

You are thinking too much like an atheists

You are thinking of God as someone viewing something external to him, like I view this computer monitor. He looks into the future and sees what happened, but what happened is external to him. But there is nothing external to God, by definition.

The randomness of nuclear decay cannot exist externally to God when God is defined as theists define Him. Which is a pretty good reason why God doesn't exist

Zombrex

pH wrote:

What's randomness got to do with free will?

They are both circumstances where the outcome is not pre-determined.

Fallen Seraph

It's amusing to reflect on the fact that this is a forum of atheists having a theology debate.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

You are thinking too much like an atheists

You are thinking of God as someone viewing something external to him, like I view this computer monitor. He looks into the future and sees what happened, but what happened is external to him. But there is nothing external to God, by definition.

The randomness of nuclear decay cannot exist externally to God when God is defined as theists define Him. Which is a pretty good reason why God doesn't exist

Dang. Two threads. Still, as I said on the other thread, no. It is perfectly possible for God to create randomness if he wishes, because being present everywhere is not the same thing as constantly willing everything.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

Me: God, when will particle X decay?
God: next Tuesday.
Me: when did you decide that?
God: I didn't - nuclear decay is random.
Me: how do you know then?
God: because I can see next Tuesday.
Me: where is it then?
God: 5 days out along the time axis.

If nuclear decay is random, then it is outside his power, right? Which leads to a paradox; is God powerful enough to remove something from his own infinate power?

pH

Wicknight wrote:

They are both circumstances where the outcome is not pre-determined.

...... and ?

What has predetermined outcomes got to do with free will?