Omnscience AND freewill???

[Grega]

Neither of us can understand eternity, but consider the words you’re using about God’s actions: “at once” and “simultaneously”. These are words relating to time. We both cannot help but think in terms of time, but at least I can imagine that not every mode of being has to correspond to my human temporal mode.

No one could ask you to imagine what another mode of being might be like, we’re both incapable of that. I’d only ask that you imagine that there could be another mode.



If He sees us do X in our future, it’s because we will do X. The key word is “will” and the will belong to us. He sees us do X because we have done/are doing/will do X. If we have done/are doing/will do Y, He at all times sees us doing Y.



I’m completely comfortable saying he indirectly determined human actions, because “indirectly” merely implies a set or range of conditions within which we operate. As has been pointed out, God didn’t create humans capable of flight like birds, so we can’t will ourselves to fly. Likewise, I suppose God did not have to allow the serpent into the Garden of Eden, but He did, thereby allowing for a range of actions. God is not the Playwright, or the Director; He is merely the Producer of the play. But ultimately the Producer is the Chief Executive; He determines whether there will be a play; He determines when the play will cease its run. But a producer doesn’t necessarily determine every detail of the plot and dialogue.



As I said - divine prerogative. What you said is true, unless the omniscient being creates a set of conditions (such as rational free wills) which precludes his knowing some things.



Jehovah is eternal and immortal, so what else could the words “beginning” and “end” apply to? What’s the alternative? A finite god? A god who was “born” ex nihilo and will someday die? That could be partly true of some man-made gods, but not the Judeo-Christian God.



You assume these ideas as if they were numerals in an equation. You neglect linguistic subtlety and nuance like some kind of ruthless mathematician. God is not purely math, and neither is the cosmos He created.



Free = Uncontrolled. A free will is an uncontrolled will.

Neither of us can understand eternity, but consider the words you’re using about God’s actions: “at once” and “simultaneously”. These are words relating to time. We both cannot help but think in terms of time, but at least I can imagine that not every mode of being has to correspond to my human temporal mode.

No one could ask you to imagine what another mode of being might be like, we’re both incapable of that. I’d only ask that you imagine that there could be another mode.
The erroneous formulation of your gods 'timeless'ness compels me to use those words, I am bound here to your definition of timeless where all things happen at once...if all things don't happen at once then he is not timeless. Furthermore you directly asked me to rid from my OP any implications that god was not timeless in that there can not be two states of your gods existence where one is different to the other. Ie: you didn't like me using words like 'seen' for it implied a past from your god's perspective
Your formulation of time reduces your god's existence to a singularity. My language is forced to respect this restriction in this thread...I offer the carrot that your god isn't timeless, but exists in a different dimension of time distinct from our own but it seems you will not take even this!

If He sees us do X in our future, it’s because we will do X. The key word is “will” and the will belong to us. He sees us do X because we have done/are doing/will do X. If we have done/are doing/will do Y, He at all times sees us doing Y.
He not only sees us do X in the future, he knows we do X in our past, more he knows we would do X before the concept of our past has any meaning, ie prior to the existence of our universe...this is the critical flaw in your argument...your god's omniscience implies more than you accept it does

I’m completely comfortable saying he indirectly determined human actions, because “indirectly” merely implies a set or range of conditions within which we operate. As has been pointed out, God didn’t create humans capable of flight like birds, so we can’t will ourselves to fly. Likewise, I suppose God did not have to allow the serpent into the Garden of Eden, but He did, thereby allowing for a range of actions. God is not the Playwright, or the Director; He is merely the Producer of the play. But ultimately the Producer is the Chief Executive; He determines whether there will be a play; He determines when the play will cease its run. But a producer doesn’t necessarily determine every detail of the plot and dialogue.
My statement 'indirectly determined' was a poorly worded way of pandering to the unsubstantiated claim that your god can sometimes be omniscient, and sometimes be not omniscient. Secondly it is required you accept your god isn't timeless with this idea, Furthermore what I mean is that your god if not omniscient when he creates the universe...then this universe can be played out with an non-omniscient god looking in on it to what ever extent its 'non-omniscience' allows...if it is allowed your god knows I do X on this timeline then he knows I do X before he even created it, ie: deterministic up to this point...otherwise the universe plays out with a god that can't foresee me doing X

As I said - divine prerogative. What you said is true, unless the omniscient being creates a set of conditions (such as rational free wills) which precludes his knowing some things.
Where then he wouldn't be omniscient and we're done

Jehovah is eternal and immortal, so what else could the words “beginning” and “end” apply to? What’s the alternative? A finite god? A god who was “born” ex nihilo and will someday die? That could be partly true of some man-made gods, but not the Judeo-Christian God.
I was talking about the proposition that your god voluntarily cedes control of his powers...if I understand correctly, Jesus was supposedly one aspect of the trinity...another part being a god that hadn't ceded any of its powers. So again this seems to run counter to what is generally held true.
Furthermore if your god can at somepoint be 'in control' and at another 'not be in control' then this implies again: not timeless!

You assume these ideas as if they were numerals in an equation. You neglect linguistic subtlety and nuance like some kind of ruthless mathematician. God is not purely math, and neither is the cosmos He created.
A mathematician is what I wish to become, but despite my 'infancy' I say even now that clarity comes with stripping away the unnecessary baggage, and focusing only on what is actually important...ie; if you want to know how fast a car is travelling you don't need to know its colour!
I say it again:
Assume timeless, assume omniscient, assume creator and cause follows

Free = Uncontrolled. A free will is an uncontrolled will.
I lost how this was related to what you quoed me on...I'm still lost

 

[Chesterton]

Another thread in this forum just got closed, and I just re-noticed the top of the page which says no debate and no apologetics. I think we’ve been doing that, and I guess we shouldn’t. Regarding your OP – are omniscience and free will incompatible? – I think we’re at the point where all we can say to each other is “yes they are” and “no they’re not”.

We’re both bound by clumsy, limited language attempting to explain the inexplicable. If, in order to abandon atheism, you have to have unanswerable questions answered, and have to comprehend the incomprehensible, you will never abandon atheism. I don’t mean to sound accusatory, but If you believe your human logic is so powerful and comprehensive that there could exist nothing which cannot be contained/explained by it, I’d have to describe that as a bit arrogant. As an antidote, I’d prescribe a pinch of humility. Ever heard a person’s mistake excused with the phrase “Well I’m only human”? There’s a lot contained in that phrase “only human”.

 

[Grega]

Another thread in this forum just got closed, and I just re-noticed the top of the page which says no debate and no apologetics. I think we’ve been doing that, and I guess we shouldn’t. Regarding your OP – are omniscience and free will incompatible? – I think we’re at the point where all we can say to each other is “yes they are” and “no they’re not”.

We’re both bound by clumsy, limited language attempting to explain the inexplicable. If, in order to abandon atheism, you have to have unanswerable questions answered, and have to comprehend the incomprehensible, you will never abandon atheism. I don’t mean to sound accusatory, but If you believe your human logic is so powerful and comprehensive that there could exist nothing which cannot be contained/explained by it, I’d have to describe that as a bit arrogant. As an antidote, I’d prescribe a pinch of humility. Ever heard a person’s mistake excused with the phrase “Well I’m only human”? There’s a lot contained in that phrase “only human”.

But I don't presume that my logic can explain everything!...I do presume that I can use it to determine in some cases what cannot be true (ie: square triangles and the like), and this I say is one of those cases!
Furthermore, to abandon the weak atheistic position I currently have I'd need that the replacement be at least tenable...I don't need to know anything about a god, but what I do know needs to be not contradictory.

 

[Chesterton]

You’ll not find “tenable” or “feasible” applied to God in 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian thought. If I had found these attributes in the Christian God, I’m sure I’d have rejected Him.

Here’s my last post; two little stories:

1. “According to legend, Christopher Columbus once challenged all the noble men and ladies at the court dinner to see if they could balance a hard-boiled egg on the table so that it would stand upright on its small end. Everyone tried, no one succeeded. They then passed the egg back to Columbus and asked him to show them how it was done. He picked up the egg, tapped it lightly against the table on its small end to dent the shell, then set it gently and easily on the table. It stood. The problem was solved. All the learned men and ladies of the court could not solve the problem with all their trying, but Columbus, the practical man of simple wisdom, solved the problem easily.”

Something once entirely inconceivable turned out to be easily conceivable. It was simply something they hadn't thought of. Are you really bold enough to determine that you are capable of having thought of everything there could possibly be?

Next: (A mathematician should appreciate this):

2. “The ancient Greek philosopher Zeno ( in the fifth century BC), arguing in defense of the philosophy of Parmenides, argued that it was impossible for a man standing at one end of an empty stadium to walk across the open field to the other end of the stadium. The man could not walk across the stadium, said Zeno, because he would first have to walk half way across the stadium. But he couldn't walk even that distance because he would first have to walk half way there. But he couldn't walk even that far because he would first have to walk half way to that point. And he couldn't walk even that far because he would first have to walk half way there. And to get even that far he would first have to walk half way there. There would, of course, be an infinity of these half way points. The man would have to traverse an infinity of half way points in order to walk anywhere. No one can traverse an infinity of anything, no matter how small. Therefore, it was impossible for the man to walk anywhere, said Zeno.

Philosophers had tried for centuries to find an adequate answer to Zeno's stadium paradox. Finally one practical minded mediaeval philosopher answered thus: you solve the problem by simply standing up and walking across the stadium. That is, you quit trying to think out an answer like all the learned scholars had done. Instead, you simply stand up and walk. "It is solved by walking!" he said. "Solvitur ambulando," he said in Latin.

He was a practical minded man with little patience for intellectual problems and complexities. He solved the problem of how to walk across the stadium by simply standing up and walking.”

This is even better. Here we have something easily conceivable (walking any distance), turned into the inconceivable by using human logic, then changed back to the conceivable by actual, physical reality. Score: Reality 1, Logic 0.

 

[Grega]

You’ll not find “tenable” or “feasible” applied to God in 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian thought. If I had found these attributes in the Christian God, I’m sure I’d have rejected Him.

Here’s my last post; two little stories:

1. “According to legend, Christopher Columbus once challenged all the noble men and ladies at the court dinner to see if they could balance a hard-boiled egg on the table so that it would stand upright on its small end. Everyone tried, no one succeeded. They then passed the egg back to Columbus and asked him to show them how it was done. He picked up the egg, tapped it lightly against the table on its small end to dent the shell, then set it gently and easily on the table. It stood. The problem was solved. All the learned men and ladies of the court could not solve the problem with all their trying, but Columbus, the practical man of simple wisdom, solved the problem easily.”

Something once entirely inconceivable turned out to be easily conceivable. It was simply something they hadn't thought of. Are you really bold enough to determine that you are capable of having thought of everything there could possibly be?

Next: (A mathematician should appreciate this):

2. “The ancient Greek philosopher Zeno ( in the fifth century BC), arguing in defense of the philosophy of Parmenides, argued that it was impossible for a man standing at one end of an empty stadium to walk across the open field to the other end of the stadium. The man could not walk across the stadium, said Zeno, because he would first have to walk half way across the stadium. But he couldn't walk even that distance because he would first have to walk half way there. But he couldn't walk even that far because he would first have to walk half way to that point. And he couldn't walk even that far because he would first have to walk half way there. And to get even that far he would first have to walk half way there. There would, of course, be an infinity of these half way points. The man would have to traverse an infinity of half way points in order to walk anywhere. No one can traverse an infinity of anything, no matter how small. Therefore, it was impossible for the man to walk anywhere, said Zeno.

Philosophers had tried for centuries to find an adequate answer to Zeno's stadium paradox. Finally one practical minded mediaeval philosopher answered thus: you solve the problem by simply standing up and walking across the stadium. That is, you quit trying to think out an answer like all the learned scholars had done. Instead, you simply stand up and walk. "It is solved by walking!" he said. "Solvitur ambulando," he said in Latin.

He was a practical minded man with little patience for intellectual problems and complexities. He solved the problem of how to walk across the stadium by simply standing up and walking.”

This is even better. Here we have something easily conceivable (walking any distance), turned into the inconceivable by using human logic, then changed back to the conceivable by actual, physical reality. Score: Reality 1, Logic 0.

Something once entirely inconceivable turned out to be easily conceivable. It was simply something they hadn't thought of. Are you really bold enough to determine that you are capable of having thought of everything there could possibly be?
salt, butter, or similar would have been my natural response to that problem...and that is not post-event smugness or arrogance it is simply a common-sense solution. The trick is to realise that to stand the egg on the table in that way without aid or changing the form of the egg is impossible. Logic is key here!

This is even better. Here we have something easily conceivable (walking any distance), turned into the inconceivable by using human logic, then changed back to the conceivable by actual, physical reality. Score: Reality 1, Logic 0.
But the main flaw in zeno's 'paradoxes' is the over simplicity of his problem modelling. He discretises that which is continuous and argues that since the process via which the goal is met may not be achieved in finitely many of these discrete steps then it cannot be obtained at all; ie: since we can only perform a finite number of these 'steps' then we perform too few steps to reach our goal. He has modelled the situation wrongly!...I acknowledge your worthy effort here though

This actually vindicates my argument in a sense because you are formulating a 'solution' to the omniscience dilemma from the perspective of a 'time-traveller' looking in on a universe that has played out independently of its own actions, you and others use the DVD analogy as well and they are both reducable to the same erronious model of the problem at hand. Importantly, this model doesn't catch the non too subtle fact that before this timeline (or DVD if you like) even existed it was still known precisely what events would occur since your god is omniscient (or director & producer & script-writer &...).

Logic 1, Faulty logic 0

 

[solarwave]

God made a world in which He knew what would happen no matter what. The reason He knows this is because this is what we choose to make happen, not because God makes us do it. In Gods logic if He made another universe there would be another timeline of events, but with our human logic it reffers to free will as freedom in this timeline the way God has created it. You seem to be looking at freewill from Gods perspective which I dont think really works, since we are 'only human'.

 

[Grega]

God made a world in which He knew what would happen no matter what. The reason He knows this is because this is what we choose to make happen, not because God makes us do it. In Gods logic if He made another universe there would be another timeline of events, but with our human logic it reffers to free will as freedom in this timeline the way God has created it. You seem to be looking at freewill from Gods perspective which I dont think really works, since we are 'only human'.

If at the precise moment your god creates a universe, the entire timeline for that universe is known to him then the actions we must perform are determined by your god. In fact any statements of the form "he knows what we do because we choose to do them" are false because that would require your god's knowledge of the timeline be contingent on us first doing something to affect it; but this doesn't happen because this timeline is known to your god in its entirety, at its moment of creation.
If at the precise moment your god creates a universe, the entre timeline for that universe is not known to him then he is not omniscient and freewill is moot


it is wrong to consider this problem from any other perspective than an omniscient entity that is creator of the universe. To consider it from our own is silly because under your formulation of god we have only pseudo free-will.
In fact, I think this is also a big problem...you believe you have freewill, but you have neither the motivation nor ability to differentiate it from pseudo free-will. If you give your god the property of omniscience and claim it created the universe then looking at the problem of omniscience/freewill from your perspective ties your hands