Of Randomness and Free Will

Could it possible that the very essence of Free Will be identical to that of Randomness? Regarding this inquiry, I refer back to Spinoza’s short-paragraphed argument from his book “Theological Political Treatise”.

Although I have in other posts posted Spinoza’s argument for an impersonal God, I shall nevertheless reiterate it for clearance’s sake. For since God is necessarily perfect as conceived by those of the Abrahamic faith, also that coherence is a subset of perfection, then the following clearly states. For since one’s essence of being is characterized by his nature, that his nature influences his will and thereby what is caused by that being, so too does God’s perfection, or inherent coherence, influence what he causes, this being the very existence of our universe. Therefore it clearly follows that what one’s causes is a direct reflection of one’s very nature, and thus the universe must be necessarily be in itself coherent – that everything that occurs ‘within’ the universe must follow from natural causes and effects. This all means that God only became what is known as the First Cause, that thereafter no miracles actually occurred. So it can thus be derived from Spinoza’s line of reasoning that the very notion of Free Will is nothing but illusory, that those who claim it even exists are engaging in nothing but self-delusion.

Coming from another perspective regarding the notion of Free Will, one wonders if Randomness and Free Will are identical. This if of particular importance because it has been once argued that between design-via-purpose (whether in a super-naturalistic or materialistic sense) and randomness, the former seems more probable. So when we approach the meaning of Randomness and Free Will, we find that they are indeed identical, since both are indeterminate, that occurrences associated to both these phenomena have no determinate variables causing their happening. That is, whatever that is opposite to the mentioned phenomena must necessarily be determinate in some simple or complex manner. It follows then that determinateness is the likely outcome of things, rather than being the result of the arbitrary order of things.

It also known among many students of Computer Science that pure randomness does not actually exist. That is, human-seemingly randomness comes about only through utterly complex instructions, so complex that the fastest computers may only be able to guess accurately the first few million values that are to be revealed. Theoretically, however, all randomly computer generated sequences are determinate. Therefore, it follows that when the religious talk about Free Will, they are actually arguing in ignorance, since they do not yet know the naturalistic biochemical/biophysical instructions that are causing their illusion of Free Will.

In all, Free Will and Randomness do not exist. So unless God is perfect, it must be maintained that God himself also follows an order, such that he himself is determinate in his own right. God does not make arbitrary decisions of have a non-orderly nature, as in the presence of Free Will, but instead makes decisions based on pre-existing presets, and that these presets affect his very essence and nature. That is, if coherence does not follow a pre-existing order, then coherence is in itself arbitrary and indeterminate, and thus led meaningless. Here then is revealed the need for an infinite regress for the pre-existing order of even higher orders. So if the religious claims that the atheist-by-practice has problems since he has to answer to the infinite need for cause-and-effect, let it also be said that the religious are worst off than them, since they have to explain the presets of presets of presets etc. of the coherence of God himself that caused his inherent coherence – his very essence of what is to be perfect.