How can omniscience and free will co-exist?

[Chris72]

Then obviously you have not heard many people's take on free will. The argument from fatalism that is the argument you are basically presenting defines free will in that sense. That view of free will is known as libertarianism and is even held by some evangelical Christians. I'm not saying that's what free will means I'm saying usually according to the argument presented that's how the advocate defines free will.

I would say that part of free will is the ability to make choices, though I think that is a rather simple definition. I believe free will is the ability to act how we desire apart from external and internal factors that would otherwise prevent or force one to act.

That's a great definition of free will. And one that excludes omniscience. If a decision has been pre-ordained, which would be a necessity if an omniscient being were to exist, then one does not have the freedom to act how they desire apart from factors that prevent or force them to act. The way you seem to want to describe it is essentially that such factors would be not be noticed by the one making the decision, so that person would have an illusion of free will. But if some being knows the decision that will be made, then there can be only one decision that will be made, and thus there is no freedom to make such a decision.

I don't see how free will isn't involved as I've described to how I believe...


I'm not contradicting myself. First, if God has foresaw the future what He has foreseen has not actually happened yet, so a decision has not actually been made in reality but as been perceived of by God that it will be made. Moreover, the desicion God has foresaw is the free will decision that my parents, not anyone else, will make. The 'prediction' doesn't make the future happen it is simply that: a prediction of what will happen.

If it is just "prediction" and not foreknowledge, then such a being would not be omniscient.

So no, there is no logical contradiction just a misunderstanding on your behalf. No fallacy as you have not even began to show one.

I have shown it multiple times now the logical fallacy you are employing. Just repeating this logical fallacy of yours doesn't eventually make it right.

Free will as defined in the above post is consistent with omniscience as again it is my parents that made the choice that arouse from their own minds and doing and God's knowledge did not conflict with that choice or acting.

Again, if they make a choice where they had more than one option and were truly free to choose either one, then such a god could not have foreknowledge of what they would choose. If he did foreknowledge, and thus omniscient, then they arent really free to choose. They may have some sort of illusion as such, but if such an omniscient being exists then the decision was already made. They just have this nice feeling that it came from their doing.

Of course, I dont believe that that is the case, I should point out. I dont believe in such an omniscient being and therefore I dont have this logical contradiction in my thinking.

My parents acted how they wanted to and thus of their own will.

I agree. Then again, I dont believe in an omniscient overlord in the sky.

Maybe, but what you say free will means is pretty dry. I have not come up with any new definitions but have asked you if your definition of free will was the one of libertarianism, of which I did not come up with. So if you think this is some battle and you are winning, I would tend to think you are the one training your brain to think so.

Nice try. Actually the logic is pretty straightforward. Free will and omniscience cannot co-exist. It is in trying to convince yourself otherwise that the logic becomes convoluted and nonsensical.

 

[solarwave]

The fact that any number of decisions could have resulted in you not being born ABSOLUTELY means that omniscience and free will can't co-exist. Take any particular decision:

If there exists an omniscient being, he knows what choice will be made.

If free will exists, one can choose any of a number of choices resulting in any number of outcomes.

So you can't have it both ways. Either the decision has already been predetermined and therefore omniscience. Or the decision has not been predetermined and free will.

Actually it depends on your understanding of time and how God knows what He knows.

I think it is more reasonable to think that God knows what I will do because that is what I choose to do, rather than me acting because God knows I will act. My action logically (not physically) comes before Gods knowledge of my action. Now I believe God is timeless and therefore doesn't know something before it happens, it only appears like that to us. Omniscience doesn't restrict our freedom, it is in part a result of our freedom.

If you want to keep repeating "if A=B and B=C, then A doesnt equal C" over and over and tell yourself it makes sense, go ahead. But the logic is pretty straightforward. Ignoring it is an extreme form of denial.

It is rather ambitious of you to try to critique my argument before I make it. Up until this point I haven't said much about my own understanding of free will and omniscience.

For the record, I don't know if free will is real. I know of an argument that seems to disprove it. I'm just saying that I don't think your line of reasoning is correct.

And thus not omniscience.

What do you think 'omniscience' and 'plan' mean then?

You say that if humans don't do what God knows would be best to do, then God isn't omniscient? How do you come to that conclusion?

Sure. YOU had a plan. But you're not claiming that you personally are omniscient, are you. That's the difference.

No, I'm not claiming that, but you also haven't explained why the difference is relevant.

 

[elopez]

That's a great definition of free will. And one that excludes omniscience. If a decision has been pre-ordained, which would be a necessity if an omniscient being were to exist, then one does not have the freedom to act how they desire apart from factors that prevent or force them to act. The way you seem to want to describe it is essentially that such factors would be not be noticed by the one making the decision, so that person would have an illusion of free will. But if some being knows the decision that will be made, then there can be only one decision that will be made, and thus there is no freedom to make such a decision.

Which is a great definition of free will, the libertarian view you said earlier you wouldn't even know where to begin to refute, or the compatibilistic free will I adhere to? Obviously it must be the libertarian view as the latter is compatible with determinism (omniscience), but why then did you say it could be easily refuted earlier?

You are still making the same mistake in assuming that foreknowledge somehow forces one to act, but it doesn't. The knowledge itself is not a casual relation that could cause something to happen. Again that God foreknows something only implies He is consciously aware of what is going to happen. So what God has foreseen is ultimately what we desire to do.

There is no illusion as the desire and choice is actual and comes from the persons reasoning. It is not forced into their minds by God. The one desicion that is foreknown to be made is the desicion that the one wants to come about, it happens because he wants it to happen not because God has foreseen it.

If it is just "prediction" and not foreknowledge, then such a being would not be omniscient.

Honestly I was using your terminology of what I thought you meant by foreknowledge, as I wasn't sure you were aware of the doctrine of foreknowledge as you were not of the view of free will I described earlier.

Again, if they make a choice where they had more than one option and were truly free to choose either one, then such a god could not have foreknowledge of what they would choose. If he did foreknowledge, and thus omniscient, then they arent really free to choose. They may have some sort of illusion as such, but if such an omniscient being exists then the decision was already made.

If you want to take this route my argument still stands from earlier: you must connect PAP with free will in order to establish to validity of this type of free will. If not, then free will doesn't mean the ability to choose differently. Free will means the ability to choose based on what we want, and if my parents wanted a relationship even God knowing that, they were still free. God did not choose. They did. That is not an illusion no matter how hard you spin it.

Again the decision is not actually made when it was foreknown by God as reality and that moment would not even exist; the decision is conceived of God, meaning that He knows it will happen but it has not actually happened yet.

I agree. Then again, I dont believe in an omniscient overlord in the sky.

Well I do, and that doesn't change the fact that it was my parent's choice.

Nice try. Actually the logic is pretty straightforward. Free will and omniscience cannot co-exist. It is in trying to convince yourself otherwise that the logic becomes convoluted and nonsensical.

There is no logic as it is faulty. You can keep saying that, but it doesn't become any more true now does it? Honestly it appears that you are repeating that to only convince yourself it is not.

 

[elman]

This is pretty simple and is discussed in detail at http://www.christianforums.com/t7573883/http://www.christianforums.com/t7573883/

If God is fully omniscient, then he knows on day 1 what your A/B choice will be on day 3. However, if you have not yet made your day 3 free A/B choice as of day 1, then you could still potentially choose A or B. So let's say God knows on day 1 that you will choose A on day 3. You then choose B per your ability to make a free choice. God's foreknowledge would thus be compromised. Very simple.

What is simple is the flaw in your problem. God will not know on day 1 that you will choose A if you are going to chose B. Since God will not make mistakes, His forknowledge will not be compromised.

 

[Chris72]

If free will is defined to mean, "not controlled by God's providence," then it doesn't exist. Happy?

Changing definitions as a means to make your belief system work, or to make yourself "happy", is not using rational thinking. It is just deluding yourself. It is how one brainwashes himself.

Again, this is not a contradiction I struggle with or am "unhappy" with, because I don't begin with the assumption that there exists an invisible overlord in the sky. It is when you try to make the claim that such a being exists and when you give him qualities such as "omniscience", that you run into problems.

If you want to try to redefine words and blur things enough in such a way that you can convince yourself that your beliefs arent running into an obvious logical dead-end, suit yourself. But there is no getting around that the logic doesn't work out.

 

[Chris72]

Actually it depends on your understanding of time and how God knows what He knows.

I think it is more reasonable to think that God knows what I will do because that is what I choose to do, rather than me acting because God knows I will act. My action logically (not physically) comes before Gods knowledge of my action. Now I believe God is timeless and therefore doesn't know something before it happens, it only appears like that to us. Omniscience doesn't restrict our freedom, it is in part a result of our freedom.

If such a being knows what decision you will make (i.e. is omniscient), regardless of whether you go through the routine of thinking things through and making the decision in your head, then the decision has already been made and you have no choice in the matter. Because otherwise such a being would NOT know what choice you are going to make and thus would not be omniscient.

It is rather ambitious of you to try to critique my argument before I make it. Up until this point I haven't said much about my own understanding of free will and omniscience.

For the record, I don't know if free will is real. I know of an argument that seems to disprove it. I'm just saying that I don't think your line of reasoning is correct.

I am pointing out how trying to reconcile omniscience and free will as being compatible represents an obvious logical fallacy. And repeating the same fallacy using different terminology is not defeating the fallacy.

What you should be doing is asking yourself why you believed this in the first place. It's not free will you should be questioning, it's omniscience. Ask yourself why you believed this in the first place.

What do you think 'omniscience' and 'plan' mean then?

You say that if humans don't do what God knows would be best to do, then God isn't omniscient? How do you come to that conclusion?

Omniscience means all-knowing. And plan means, well, it means "plan". It's not an obscure or complicated word. It's only when you try to stretch these words to mean things they dont in order to try and solve a logical quandary that you run into problems.

And that wasn't exactly the conclusion I drew, but even if it were, the end result would be the same, that, yes, it would indicate such a being would not be omniscient. I actually was saying if humans don't make the choices that such an omniscient being expected them to make, then such a being would not be omniscient. But same deal either way. Freedom to make choices means no omniscience.

No, I'm not claiming that, but you also haven't explained why the difference is relevant.

You stated:

For example, I might plan on how to win a football match, but due to free will other people don't follow my plan and so lose the match. I still had a plan, its just that no one wanted to follow it.

In this scenario, you are talking about YOU, not some omniscient being. And the difference is very much relevant. Since you are not omniscient, then the plan is very much dependant on the free will decisions of others. But if you were trying to claim that you are omniscient, it would mean that you would have to know the outcome of such a match to begin with and therefore such "decisions" wouldn't really be decisions because the choices would have to go the way you know they are going.

Again, if you don't try to fit omniscience into the mix then you really dont have any trouble.

 

[AllieBaba2012]

No, actually just another god. If you have evidence, logic, or reason to support your claim that your god is the "one true god", then let's hear it. And if your beliefs are threatened by my posts, you can feel free to ignore them. I am here to have a discussion on the matter with those who feel their beliefs can stand up to it. If for some reason I get banned, then that just represents the height of intellectual cowardice.

As far as the "his ways are beyond us" argument, this is nothing more than a cop-out. It's not answer, it just means you gave up on asking the question. I dont see anywhere in your post where you address the topic I posted.

My beliefs are not threatened by you. I am offended, however, by anti-Christians who seek out groups of Christians pretending to want to attain knowledge, when the only thing they seek is to disrupt and jeer.

I am quite adept at argument, and quite experienced. The fact that you cannot comprehend the points that have been made, repeatedly, is not a reflection of lack of ability on my (or anybody else's) part. You have no desire to understand. You are lying when you say you do. Your sole purpose in frequenting this forum is not to increase your understanding, or even to share information. Your sole purpose is to disrupt, jeer, ridicule and arrogantly announce that we're all too stupid to be privy to your lofty understanding of the world.

I do not go to atheist sites to torment atheists, I have no desire to. I question the motives of a person who derives pleasure from ridiculing the faith of people at a Christian forum, and insists that God cannot exist because there is no evidence.

It's not like that's a new argument, and you don't make it better than others before you. It's the standard argument of non-believers, and their excuse for persecuting Christians.

I have news for you..you are not smarter than all those who believe. You are not smarter than I am. I make my points quite succinctly and clearly. If you choose not to accept them, that's your business, but kindly don't pretend it's because I didn't make the points, or they aren't valid. The fact that you refuse to accept them has nothing to do with their validity. It comes down to a matter of opinion and a matter of faith. Your opinion is no more valid to me than my faith is to you.

I do not understand and I am suspicious of people who troll the internet for the sole purpose of seeking out Christians, lying to enter into their circle, then doing all they can to disrupt from within. It's dishonorable and dishonest. I don't suspect you care, of course you don't. But I think it's important that you know that you aren't fooling anybody.

The people who are being so considerate of you and are treating you with some seriousness are not doing so because they are in awe of your superior intellect. They are doing it because they are Christian. They recognize you for what you are...but they will take the taunts, and the blasphemy, and the ridicule, because they love you and would like to see you saved. It isn't because you've impressed anybody that you are allowed to pontificate here. It's because they feel sorry for you.

 

[lesliedellow]

Changing definitions as a means to make your belief system work, or to make yourself "happy", is not using rational thinking. It is just deluding yourself. It is how one brainwashes himself.

Again, this is not a contradiction I struggle with or am "unhappy" with, because I don't begin with the assumption that there exists an invisible overlord in the sky. It is when you try to make the claim that such a being exists and when you give him qualities such as "omniscience", that you run into problems.

If you want to try to redefine words and blur things enough in such a way that you can convince yourself that your beliefs arent running into an obvious logical dead-end, suit yourself. But there is no getting around that the logic doesn't work out.

Look, you might think the definition of free will is straightforward, but philosophers have been debating it for centuries. Personally, I don't know how it is to be defined (or whether it even exists), but what I do know is that any definition I embrace must be compatible with divine omniscience.

 

[Chris72]

Which is a great definition of free will, the libertarian view you said earlier you wouldn't even know where to begin to refute, or the compatibilistic free will I adhere to? Obviously it must be the libertarian view as the latter is compatible with determinism (omniscience), but why then did you say it could be easily refuted earlier?

I was referring to the definition you gave as follows:

I believe free will is the ability to act how we desire apart from external and internal factors that would otherwise prevent or force one to act.

And it most certainly is NOT compatible with determinism. Such an assertion is absolutely easy to refute.

You are still making the same mistake in assuming that foreknowledge somehow forces one to act, but it doesn't. The knowledge itself is not a casual relation that could cause something to happen. Again that God foreknows something only implies He is consciously aware of what is going to happen. So what God has foreseen is ultimately what we desire to do.

And you are still making the same mistake that a being can have foreknowledge of the decision someone will make if that someone has the freedom to make a different decision. If you want to put it into "PAP" terms, there are no "alternate possibilities" one can make if such a being has foreknowledge of the results of such a decision.

Again, what you are describing is a scenario where someone essentially has the illusion of free will, where they go through the mental mechanisms of making a decision based on their desires, but the reality is the decision was already made for them. Otherwise, no being could have had foreknowledge of such an event.

There is no illusion as the desire and choice is actual and comes from the persons reasoning. It is not forced into their minds by God. The one desicion that is foreknown to be made is the desicion that the one wants to come about, it happens because he wants it to happen not because God has foreseen it.

That only works if you are trying to state that such a being instills in them the wants and desires to make the decisions exactly as he foresees it. If they truly have a choice in the matter, they could choose differently than what he foresaw.

And I emphasize again. I do not believe such a being exists. I do not believe we are robots or puppets controlled by some invisible Geppetto in the sky. I am merely pointing out the logical contradiction you have to make yourself believe in in order to believe such a being exists.

Honestly I was using your terminology of what I thought you meant by foreknowledge, as I wasn't sure you were aware of the doctrine of foreknowledge as you were not of the view of free will I described earlier.

If you want to take this route my argument still stands from earlier: you must connect PAP with free will in order to establish to validity of this type of free will. If not, then free will doesn't mean the ability to choose differently. Free will means the ability to choose based on what we want, and if my parents wanted a relationship even God knowing that, they were still free. God did not choose. They did. That is not an illusion no matter how hard you spin it.

Again, you can keep playing the word definition game to try and make your case if you want, but that's not really solving the logical contradiction you are facing.

If you dont have more than one possibility, you dont have a free will decision to make. If you just think you have more than one possibility, but dont, then you still dont have a decision to make. It is only when you have more than option, and you can make either one of your own volition, that it is a decision you are making through free will.

And, no, I am not trying to "spin" it in the least bit to suggest your parents didnt have free will to start a relationship. I dont believe such a god exists, so I am not the one who has to play logical twister to make the case that they had free will and simultaneously that there is an omniscient being. Your parents entirely had free will, as did mine. My point is that that there doesnt exist an omniscient deity, not that we dont have free will.

Again the decision is not actually made when it was foreknown by God as reality and that moment would not even exist; the decision is conceived of God, meaning that He knows it will happen but it has not actually happened yet.

And therefore the decision cant be changed. And therefore no one has the free will, despite whether or not they think they are coming about it through their own volition, to change it.

Again, IF you believe in such a being.

Well I do, and that doesn't change the fact that it was my parent's choice.

It would if he existed, that is what I have been demonstrating.

There is no logic as it is faulty. You can keep saying that, but it doesn't become any more true now does it? Honestly it appears that you are repeating that to only convince yourself it is not.

No no no no no. YOU are the one who keeps repeating the same logical fallacy over and over in order for it to somehow make sense in your head. You might be at the point now where you have effectively compartmentalized the god-belief area out, so that it is no longer susceptible to rational thought. But that doesnt change the fact that it very much represents a logical contradiction that free will and omniscience are compatible. There's really no getting around that.

 

[Chris72]

My beliefs are not threatened by you. I am offended, however, by anti-Christians who seek out groups of Christians pretending to want to attain knowledge, when the only thing they seek is to disrupt and jeer.

I am seeking discussion, not disruption. The title of this section of the forum states " A Forum for Non Christians to explore Christianity with Christians." I am going through your beliefs and pointing out what I notice to be an obvious logical dead-end.

I am quite adept at argument, and quite experienced. The fact that you cannot comprehend the points that have been made, repeatedly, is not a reflection of lack of ability on my (or anybody else's) part.

Again, repeating, essentially the obvious contradiction that such a god knows what we will decide yet we have the freedom to decide differently, is not making an argument. Repeating it multiple times doesnt make it true.

You have no desire to understand. You are lying when you say you do. Your sole purpose in frequenting this forum is not to increase your understanding, or even to share information. Your sole purpose is to disrupt, jeer, ridicule and arrogantly announce that we're all too stupid to be privy to your lofty understanding of the world.

Look, whatever. I see everyday the dangers inherent in dogmatic adherence to cultural superstitions. I see the inevitable violence and destruction. I see the progress of science held up again and again and again. this pattern has repeated itself throughout history. Inevitably reason and rational thought win out but only after a long struggle. What concerns me most is the resurgence in recent years of this dogma entering the public sphere. That is why I am one of many who are speaking out.

What I am after is open discourse. If a question I raise troubles you, then maybe you should re-think why you felt the way you did in the first place.

I do not go to atheist sites to torment atheists, I have no desire to. I question the motives of a person who derives pleasure from ridiculing the faith of people at a Christian forum, and insists that God cannot exist because there is no evidence.

It's not like that's a new argument, and you don't make it better than others before you. It's the standard argument of non-believers, and their excuse for persecuting Christians.

Again, I am here for discussion. I get my "pleasure" in other ways. And I didnt insist that god cannot exist because there is no evidence. If you really want to simplify my rationale for not believing in gods down to a couple lines, you could begin with that (i.e. there is no evidence), but then add "and no reason to suspect he does exist, impossible that he would exist as described, and there exists a perfectly rational alternative explanation why such a belief in him would exist in the first place (i.e. cultural superstitions).

Of course, any of those points are rather vague. But if you want to discuss any of them, that's why I'm here.

I have news for you..you are not smarter than all those who believe. You are not smarter than I am. I make my points quite succinctly and clearly. If you choose not to accept them, that's your business, but kindly don't pretend it's because I didn't make the points, or they aren't valid. The fact that you refuse to accept them has nothing to do with their validity. It comes down to a matter of opinion and a matter of faith. Your opinion is no more valid to me than my faith is to you.

Your points regarding omniscience and free will arent valid, that's what I keep pointing out. It has nothing to do with who is smarter than whom.

The rest of your diatribe I decided to ignore. If you dont like my posts, dont read them.

 

[Chris72]

Look, you might think the definition of free will is straightforward, but philosophers have been debating it for centuries. Personally, I don't know how it is to be defined (or whether it even exists), but what I do know is that any definition I embrace must be compatible with divine omniscience.

Yes, it is true that many philosophers have been trying for centuries (millenia really) to make the logic work somehow. The ones that are trying to do so have had such difficulty because the logic doesnt work. If you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole it's gonna be a struggle that will go on and on and on as long as you keep trying.

But trying to change definitions or logical principles in order to make them compatible to a belief system is not a rational approach. What you should be doing is re-rexamining your belief system. Ask yourself why you thought would you did to begin with.

Because what you are describing is the first step towards brainwashing yourself, and how a cult propagates itself. It's called compartmentalization. You apply logic and reason to all areas of your thinking except those dealing with one topic, in this case your religious beliefs.

For example, if someone told you that they never eat fish and you point out that they are eating a halibut (sorry, best example I could come up with off the top of my head), and they respond back with "I never eat fish, but I do eat halibut", you would probably rightfully recognize that the statement makes no sense.

Similarly, if someone told you they have a ghost in their house that only those who want to see are able to see, you would rightfully call BS.

But when it comes to matters of your religious beliefs, you train yourself NOT to use these logical principles. You tell yourself over and over that doing so will be a lack of "faith", and that such doubt is a bad thing somehow. Eventually you get to the point where you no longer ask such questions. And when someone like myself comes along and asks them for you, you are confused as to how someone doesnt see things the way you do. You start complaining that someone like me is just being disrespectful and hide back in your shell.

But look at how you came to believe in such an invisible being, and how you ascribed him the qualities you believe he has. Look at how such beliefs are heterogeneous across the globe and across time. Look at how such beliefs are divided along cultural lines. And maybe you will start to see that these are nothing more than primitive cultural superstitions being kept alive by a large scale cult mentality.

You want true peace and progress in this world, it will come when people abandon such dogma, and base their beliefs on what comes to them through evidence, logic and reason. And THAT is why these discussions are so important.

 

[Chris72]

And on that note, I am out for now. My four day weekend off ruined by hurricane weather is now over. Will try to check back in sometime later. If you guys are looking for a discussion, I am game. Otherwise, I'm done.

I'll be thinking rationally for you!

 

[solarwave]

If such a being knows what decision you will make (i.e. is omniscient), regardless of whether you go through the routine of thinking things through and making the decision in your head, then the decision has already been made and you have no choice in the matter. Because otherwise such a being would NOT know what choice you are going to make and thus would not be omniscient.

But God doesn't technically know what I will do before I do it. God is beyond time. Would you agree that if God just knew the past and present there could be free will? How do you suppose He knows the present if He is timeless? What does God call the present when He is beyond time? It would seem that there would be no way of God to be able to tell the difference between the past, present and future as they are all the same to Him. Also as God is timeless he cannot gain new experiences and therefore if it makes sense for God to know the past and the present, it also makes sense for God to know what is in our future, but His present.

I am pointing out how trying to reconcile omniscience and free will as being compatible represents an obvious logical fallacy. And repeating the same fallacy using different terminology is not defeating the fallacy.

I don't think anything about how time works is obvious. You get philosophers arguing over how it works still.

What you should be doing is asking yourself why you believed this in the first place. It's not free will you should be questioning, it's omniscience. Ask yourself why you believed this in the first place.

I don't want to question free will, but I know it has problems anyway.

Omniscience means all-knowing. And plan means, well, it means "plan". It's not an obscure or complicated word. It's only when you try to stretch these words to mean things they dont in order to try and solve a logical quandary that you run into problems.

Words can can slight (or big) differences in meaning and small differences in their use can make a difference in philosophy. For example if you say you have a plan for someone, it can mean they WILL follow the plan or that they COULD follow it.

And that wasn't exactly the conclusion I drew, but even if it were, the end result would be the same, that, yes, it would indicate such a being would not be omniscient. I actually was saying if humans don't make the choices that such an omniscient being expected them to make, then such a being would not be omniscient. But same deal either way. Freedom to make choices means no omniscience.

I agree that if humans acted differently from what God thought they would then God wouldn't be omniscient. I think humans always act according to how God thinks they will.

In this scenario, you are talking about YOU, not some omniscient being. And the difference is very much relevant. Since you are not omniscient, then the plan is very much dependant on the free will decisions of others. But if you were trying to claim that you are omniscient, it would mean that you would have to know the outcome of such a match to begin with and therefore such "decisions" wouldn't really be decisions because the choices would have to go the way you know they are going.

But that assumes I exist in time. I am saying that God is outside time and can 'see' all space-time at once in God's eternal present.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yes, it is true that many philosophers have been trying for centuries (millenia really) to make the logic work somehow. The ones that are trying to do so have had such difficulty because the logic doesnt work. If you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole it's gonna be a struggle that will go on and on and on as long as you keep trying.

The reason that free will is problematical has got nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion.

On the face of it there are two mutually exclusive and exhaustive possibilities:

Either our actions are in some way determined, in which case they will at least have the appearance of following some kind of rationale. But that is not what most people mean by freewill.

Alternatively, they must be undetermined, but then there is no apparent reason for them, and they are arbitrary. But that is also not what most people mean by free will.

Since whole books have been written on the subject, that is over simplifying it a bit.

 

[elopez]

I was referring to the definition you gave as follows:

And it most certainly is NOT compatible with determinism. Such an assertion is absolutely easy to refute.

You obviously have no clue what you're even talking about, and I'll make that even more obvious. The definition I gave of free will is called compatibilism and actually is compatible with determinism, hence the title. Now if it were so easy of a position to refute you wouldn't be wasting time just saying so, you would actually be backing up what you've said. Yet seeing as how you just want to sit there and say something is so easy to refute without actually refuting it, how do you think that makes yourself look? I'll tell you, unprepared and clueless.

And you are still making the same mistake that a being can have foreknowledge of the decision someone will make if that someone has the freedom to make a different decision. If you want to put it into "PAP" terms, there are no "alternate possibilities" one can make if such a being has foreknowledge of the results of such a decision.

Again, what you are describing is a scenario where someone essentially has the illusion of free will, where they go through the mental mechanisms of making a decision based on their desires, but the reality is the decision was already made for them. Otherwise, no being could have had foreknowledge of such an event.

The only mistake being made is by you. I'll point it out one last time as I've been pointing it out and you want to ignore it and think it will go away by being redundant with your argument.

The desicion was not made for them. That really just makes no sense. Again it's not like God made the decision for my parents, and nor did by God foreknowing about my parents did it cause them to form a relationship. Who then, other than my parents is responsible for them getting together? Them! It was their desicion based on their wants. Foreknowledge does not cause things to happen, it only means God is consciously aware of what will happen.

Now, I don't expect you to refute any of this because if you could you would have by now, but instead you'll just repeat what you've been saying which only means you have been arguing in one big circle. The only reason I'm repeating what I've said is because you have yet to refute any of it.

That only works if you are trying to state that such a being instills in them the wants and desires to make the decisions exactly as he foresees it. If they truly have a choice in the matter, they could choose differently than what he foresaw.

And I emphasize again. I do not believe such a being exists. I do not believe we are robots or puppets controlled by some invisible Geppetto in the sky. I am merely pointing out the logical contradiction you have to make yourself believe in in order to believe such a being exists.

Your argument is still lacking as you have not supported any notion of free will you've been espousing. You need to connect the concept of PAP to free will to show that free will is actually the libertarian view you're arguing for.

I know you don't believe in God. That much is obvious. Let me try to make it as clear for you as possible, though. God foreknowing something is not Him controlling the future or our behavior. Knowing something doesn't make that something happen. If you think that is contradicting please show that, but instead of simply saying it is without any support really does nothing in your favor.

Again, you can keep playing the word definition game to try and make your case if you want, but that's not really solving the logical contradiction you are facing.

Tell me, what game are you speaking of? Because I assure there is no game here, but if you're having trouble understanding a word or definition of a word just let me know and I'll clarify it for you.

If you dont have more than one possibility, you dont have a free will decision to make. If you just think you have more than one possibility, but dont, then you still dont have a decision to make. It is only when you have more than option, and you can make either one of your own volition, that it is a decision you are making through free will.

This is what you need to be providing support for. How is it that more than one viable option means I am free? You have already agreed and said my definition of free will as "great," remember? According to my definition so long as one makes a choice based on their desires without any external or internal factor preventing or forcing them to act, they have free will. It doesn't require that we had more than one option to choose from or if we could have chosen differently. Therefore as God's foreknowledge is not an external factor coercing my parents into a relationship or preventing them, and they choose to be in a relationship because they want to, they have free will.

And, no, I am not trying to "spin" it in the least bit to suggest your parents didnt have free will to start a relationship. I dont believe such a god exists, so I am not the one who has to play logical twister to make the case that they had free will and simultaneously that there is an omniscient being. Your parents entirely had free will, as did mine. My point is that that there doesnt exist an omniscient deity, not that we dont have free will.

You say you're not trying to 'spin' this but I don't believe you, or at least you make it very hard to believe that. I mean, here you are saying that you are not saying we don't have free will, yet in our above post when you said, "If you don't have more than one possibility, you don't have a free will decision to make." So if that is not you arguing we don't have free will, then what is it? Sounds to me like you can't even get your own argument straight...

And therefore the decision cant be changed. And therefore no one has the free will, despite whether or not they think they are coming about it through their own volition, to change it.

Again, IF you believe in such a being.

I am not saying the decision could be changed. It wouldn't need to be subject to change in order to be considered a free choice. That is what I'm saying.

It would if he existed, that is what I have been demonstrating.

No, it wouldn't, as it is my parents personal choice to have a relationship with each other even being that God knows it will happen. It is no one else's choice but theirs. Why is that so hard to understand?

No no no no no. YOU are the one who keeps repeating the same logical fallacy over and over in order for it to somehow make sense in your head. You might be at the point now where you have effectively compartmentalized the god-belief area out, so that it is no longer susceptible to rational thought. But that doesnt change the fact that it very much represents a logical contradiction that free will and omniscience are compatible. There's really no getting around that.

You sound like my three year old nephew, "no no no no!" lol

You think there is some fallacy but there isn't. You think that because you yourself are biased of your own distorted argument and must cut out all rational discourse and continue down your path of redundancy.

 

[Cieza]

I'm sorry, but I really dont have the time to go through an entire other thread. I think that you are agreeing with me, that free will and omniscience are logically incompatible. If such a being knows the decision you make, you are powerless to do differently. If you have the power to do differently, such a being cannot be omniscient.

Of course, I am specifically addressing with this thread the point that such a being could not possibly have any plans with respect to you personally (if you believe we have free will) since it is only by chance that you would have even been born.

Yes I agree. Free will and omniscience are logically incompatible.

Here's a site I recommend. Church of Reality

 

[elman]

Yes I agree. Free will and omniscience are logically incompatible.

Here's a site I recommend. Church of Reality

No they are not logically incompatible. You use flawed examples to reach a flawed conclusion.

 

[Emmy]

Dear Chris72. Think of God knowing the Beginnung and the End of our earthly lives. God will see what we have chosen, after we have chosen and the end of our days on Earth. God being omniscient, will have our whole life in Front of Him, and being omniscient, He will know All. To us it seems impossible but God is the Great I AM. I say this with love. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[Chris72]

But God doesn't technically know what I will do before I do it. God is beyond time. Would you agree that if God just knew the past and present there could be free will? How do you suppose He knows the present if He is timeless? What does God call the present when He is beyond time? It would seem that there would be no way of God to be able to tell the difference between the past, present and future as they are all the same to Him. Also as God is timeless he cannot gain new experiences and therefore if it makes sense for God to know the past and the present, it also makes sense for God to know what is in our future, but His present.

Again, if he exists, if he is omniscient, and if he knows what will happen in what we call the future, regardless of whether you have ascribed some kind of timeless quality to him, then any such decisions we make have already been predetermined and thus no free will.

Of course, this logical dilemma only exists if you believe in such a being and want to coincide omniscience with free will.

I don't think anything about how time works is obvious. You get philosophers arguing over how it works still.

I didnt say how time works is obvious. I said the logical fallacy you must employ in order to reconcile free will with omniscience is obvious.

I don't want to question free will, but I know it has problems anyway.

That wasnt what I said. I said you should question the beliefs that led you to such a logical conundrum. If they are based solely on cultural superstitions and would have been different had you lived in a different time and place, then you should abandon such beliefs instead of playing logical twister to make them fit with what you know based on logic, evidence and reason.

Words can can slight (or big) differences in meaning and small differences in their use can make a difference in philosophy. For example if you say you have a plan for someone, it can mean they WILL follow the plan or that they COULD follow it.

If I personally, as a mortal human being, have a plan for someone or something then you're right. They may or may not follow it, that's up to them. But I dont claim to be omniscient. If a being is supposed to be omniscient, that changes things. Because if someone COULD alter such a plan, then such a being isnt truly omniscient because he wouldnt know what decisions are to be made.

Again, any number of countless decisions could have made differently, by countless numbers of people, on literally day of the lives, of any of your many thousands (really millions) of ancestors dating back to the beginnings of mankind, which could have resulted in you not even being born. How could a divine being or beings have a plan for you when you may never have even come close to existing?

I agree that if humans acted differently from what God thought they would then God wouldn't be omniscient. I think humans always act according to how God thinks they will.

In which case, they're not acting through free will.

But that assumes I exist in time. I am saying that God is outside time and can 'see' all space-time at once in God's eternal present.

Again, in which case there wouldn't be free will. If there are alternate possibilities to the choices we make then there cant be an omniscient being. Plain and simple.

 

[Chris72]

The reason that free will is problematical has got nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion.

On the face of it there are two mutually exclusive and exhaustive possibilities:

Either our actions are in some way determined, in which case they will at least have the appearance of following some kind of rationale. But that is not what most people mean by freewill.

Alternatively, they must be undetermined, but then there is no apparent reason for them, and they are arbitrary. But that is also not what most people mean by free will.

Since whole books have been written on the subject, that is over simplifying it a bit.

It actually has alot to do with christianity and with many other religions, or at least those who ascribe omniscience to their deity or deities, because it makes their gods impossible.

As far as the non-religious determinism vs non-determinism debate and how it relates to quantum mechanics, etc, that's an interesting topic but not really the subject of this thread. My point is that there is no invisible omniscient being in the sky. Or at least, if you believe there is, then we would have to be essentially just puppets at the hands of this puppet master in the sky. And of course, by extension of this, there really wouldnt be any morality, since everything is just following a pre-destined path.

I dont believe this at all, of course. I believe that god beliefs are cultural superstitions, and I believe I absolutely have free will in my actions.