How can omniscience & omnipotence be compatible with free will?

[bricklayer]

So no free will for God. He's locked in to whatever decisions have been made.

Or because of the four fundamental forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear).

How would one tell the difference?

God has a free will; He is free to do whetever can be done.
However, God's will is unchanging because it is necessary.
Our wills are subect to change. That which is subject to change is subject (IE not-sovereign, not necessary, contingent).

It was my observations of the material world and its economy that originally convinced me that the matter-space-time continuum is contingent. I do not affirm material necessity primarily because of the inability of matter to increase in organizational complexity spontaneously and the inability of information to increase spontaneously.

 

[CTD]

So no free will for God. He's locked in to whatever decisions have been made.

Wow, wouldn't be fun to be one of the straw gods, would it?

I'll stick with the one who created all, the Living God Who is not restricted by time.

 

[Davian]

Wow, wouldn't be fun to be one of the straw gods, would it?

But are not all gods made of straw...

I'll stick with the one who created all, the Living God Who is not restricted by time.

...including yours?

There are no restrictions... on what does not exist.

 

[CTD]

But are not all gods made of straw...

...including yours?

There are no restrictions... on what does not exist.

You presuppose God does not exist, and think it a clever trick?

Prove it and you'll be an hero to many. Probably be awarded all classes of the Nobel prize simultaneously. Scoffers have been trying for thousands of years, but don't let that discourage you. Many who have tried have discovered the truth.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Can we know God doesn't exist? I suppose it depends on how many presumed epistemic principles etc it takes to argue against God, and how "lucky" as opposed to "skillful" one would be if ones belief were true having relied on them.

It may be a bit like with form at the bookies, there might be a bet on a certain horse which made more sense, and some beliefs would be closer to (or approach) knowledge of the winner even if we did not actually witness the result. I suppose it depends on looking at the "form" of the types of reasoning gnostic atheists use, and going from there.

 

[Davian]

You presuppose God does not exist, and think it a clever trick?

On the contrary; all I have seen here are straw-gods, as you call them. Can you demonstrate that yours is any different?

Prove it and you'll be an hero to many. Probably be awarded all classes of the Nobel prize simultaneously.

I seriously doubt that. Show me scientifically where "God" is of any significance.

Scoffers have been trying for thousands of years, but don't let that discourage you. Many who have tried have discovered the truth.

And others have found that what is asserted as "truth" is really only "religion".

 

[Cieza]

God has a free will; He is free to do whetever can be done.
However, God's will is unchanging because it is necessary.
Our wills are subect to change. That which is subject to change is subject (IE not-sovereign, not necessary, contingent).

It was my observations of the material world and its economy that originally convinced me that the matter-space-time continuum is contingent. I do not affirm material necessity primarily because of the inability of matter to increase in organizational complexity spontaneously and the inability of information to increase spontaneously.

If God knows everything, past present & future - then he can't have free will. God would know what he's going to do tomorrow and he would therefore not be free to choose to do something contrary to what he previously knew he would do.

So I have news for you. If God exists, one of these must be true:
God doesn't know everything
or
God doesn't have free will

 

[bricklayer]

If God knows everything, past present & future - then he can't have free will. God would know what he's going to do tomorrow and he would therefore not be free to choose to do something contrary to what he previously knew he would do.

So I have news for you. If God exists, one of these must be true:
God doesn't know everything
or
God doesn't have free will

You are confusing a free will with a secret will.
There is no claim that humans or God have a secret will, a will unknown to God.
Your entire assertion seems to be predicated on this misunderstanding.
How does God's omniscience violate freedom?

God does have a free will, but He does not have a changing will.
God's will, like His knowledge, is necessary; it is not subject to change.
Nothing about God is subject to anything.

We do have free wills, but we do not have secret wills.
God does not come to know our free will choices; we do.
God does not come to know His own free will choices; we do.

Human free will is subject to change. That which is subject to change is subject (IE not-sovereign, not-necessary, contingent).
Everything about us is contingent including out knowledge and our free will.
Everything about God is necessary including His knowledge and His free will.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

If God knows everything, past present & future - then he can't have free will. God would know what he's going to do tomorrow and he would therefore not be free to choose to do something contrary to what he previously knew he would do.

So I have news for you. If God exists, one of these must be true:
God doesn't know everything
or
God doesn't have free will

This. People disagreeing with this lock tight explanation simply have not clue one what words like omniscience actually mean. And all the tricks and attempts at deflection don't change the facts of Cieza's statement one whit.

 

[bricklayer]

This. People disagreeing with this lock tight explanation simply have not clue one what words like omniscience actually mean. And all the tricks and attempts at deflection don't change the facts of Cieza's statement one whit.

The bible makes it clear that man cannot make a choice that God comes to know.
The bible also makes it clear that man is free to choose to do whatever he can do.
I do not see a conflict.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

The bible makes it clear that man cannot make a choice that God comes to know.
The bible also makes it clear that man is free to choose to do whatever he can do.
I do not see a conflict.

...I know it's almost like the writers of the bible were less concerned with the implications of what omniscience actually means and more interested in writing the collective religious stories of their culture. In fact some of the greater minds of Christian history have wrestled and pontificated on this issue. Unfortunate that they did not live in the present to have their intellectual and theological concerns remedied oh so simply with your textual utterance of, "I do not see the conflict." Obviously Aquinas and the like names should be erased. These discussions always boil down the same thing every time. An inability to accept what "omniscience" means.

 

[bricklayer]

...I know it's almost like the writers of the bible were less concerned with the implications of what omniscience actually means and more interested in writing the collective religious stories of their culture. In fact some of the greater minds of Christian history have wrestled and pontificated on this issue. Unfortunate that they did not live in the present to have their intellectual and theological concerns remedied oh so simply with your textual utterance of, "I do not see the conflict." Obviously Aquinas and the like names should be erased. These discussions always boil down the same thing every time. An inability to accept what "omniscience" means.

Omniscience is necessary exhaustive knowledge. How does God's omniscience violate our free will?
The two are on different scales.

Your perception of God is that He has objective exhaustive knowledge; that would be contradictory.
To know a thing objectively is to know it as it is; God does not need a thing to exist to know it exhaustively. God know all apart from its existence. God is necessarily omniscient. Your error is in assigning God to an objective position. God is necessary; everything else is contingent. The objective position is unoccupied.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Omniscience is necessary exhaustive knowledge. How does God's omniscience violate our free will?
The two are on different scales.

See my earlier posts about people not having clue one about what "omniscience" means. As I am not much for wall talking that's my last contribution to the discussion. Talking in circles is rather boring.

 

[bricklayer]

See my earlier posts about people not having clue one about what "omniscience" means. As I am not much for wall talking that's my last contribution to the discussion. Talking in circles is rather boring.

Hang in there; you'll catch on.
You see, onmiscience wasn't that difficult to understand, was it?

 

[Davian]

Can we know God doesn't exist?

Would that not presume that we could agree on what is meant by "God", before we could know that it did not exist?

I do not know what you mean when you write "God".

I suppose it depends on how many presumed epistemic principles etc it takes to argue against God, and how "lucky" as opposed to "skillful" one would be if ones belief were true having relied on them.

It may be a bit like with form at the bookies, there might be a bet on a certain horse which made more sense, and some beliefs would be closer to (or approach) knowledge of the winner even if we did not actually witness the result. I suppose it depends on looking at the "form" of the types of reasoning gnostic atheists use, and going from there.

What is a gnostic atheist? Does their atheism only apply to the deities that they know not to exist?

 

[Cieza]

It seems that you are confusing a free will with a secret will.

I am not confusing anything. In the original scenario, Pete has the ability to make a free & unimpeded choice between a & b.

Think of it this way:
God's knowledge of Pete's day 2 a/b choice = x
Pete's day 2 a/b choice = y

If it were asked on day 1, "does God know what Pete's day 2 a/b choice will be?", the Christian would answer "yes". That means variable x must have a value - either a or b - on day 1.

Variable y, on the other hand, doesn't receive a value until day 2.

If variable x has the value of a and Pete chooses b (which he can, as variable y doesn't get a value until day 2), then God's foreknowledge has been negated. Very simple.

 

[bricklayer]

I am not confusing anything. In the original scenario, Pete has the ability to make a free & unimpeded choice between a & b.

Think of it this way:
God's knowledge of Pete's day 2 a/b choice = x
Pete's day 2 a/b choice = y

If it were asked on day 1, "does God know what Pete's day 2 a/b choice will be?", the Christian would answer "yes". That means variable x must have a value - either a or b - on day 1.

Variable y, on the other hand, doesn't receive a value until day 2.

If variable x has the value of a and Pete chooses b (which he can, as variable y doesn't get a value until day 2), then God's foreknowledge has been negated. Very simple.

One of your errors is what is called an anthropisis, an inference that God has a chronological sequence of intellectual perceptions, as to eternally present intellectual conceptions.

Your "Pete" above does not have the ability to conceive ideas; all of "Pete's" ideas are intellectual perceptions.

Intellectual conceptions are implied; intellectual perceptions are inferred.
God cannot infer ideas from "Pete", and "Pete" cannot conceive of an idea that is not eternally present in the mind of God.
God does not dialog with man; God condescends to man.

Should you choose to calibrate your perception of a free will choice to mean an intellectual conception then that is your free will choice.
The bible makes it very clear that we are responsible for our choices, exactly the combination of choices that God chose to create.
Recommend that you recalibrate your nomenclature; I don't think that your argument will hold up before the Judge.