Can omnipotence coexist with free will?

[Dave Ellis]

Free will could exist no problem with an onmipotent being. They don't contradict each other at all.

However, free will does contradict a omniscient, timeless creator. It's impossible for the two of those to co-exist.

 

[elopez]

However, free will does contradict a omniscient, timeless creator. It's impossible for the two of those to co-exist.

Correction. A libertarian free will contradicts a being who has knowledge of the future. Though, a libertarian free will is hardly sensible anyway. That doesn't mean there cannot be free will in relation to an omniscient Deity, just not in the libertarian sense.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Correction. A libertarian free will contradicts a being who has knowledge of the future. Though, a libertarian free will is hardly sensible anyway. That doesn't mean there cannot be free will in relation to an omniscient Deity, just not in the libertarian sense.

Not at all... if there's a being who has full knowledge of the future and has full control over how you are made, any form of free will is impossible.

The choices we make are ultimately linked to how our brains are constructed, biochemistry, etc. If some being is responsible for setting all that up, and has full knowledge of the future, then that being is fully responsible for the decisions made by the person.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not at all... if there's a being who has full knowledge of the future and has full control over how you are made, any form of free will is impossible.

The choices we make are ultimately linked to how our brains are constructed, biochemistry, etc. If some being is responsible for setting all that up, and has full knowledge of the future, then that being is fully responsible for the decisions made by the person.

Suppose we have a soul, which magically gives us true free will. Time marches on, and we make decisions. I choose left instead of right, up instead of down. These are fully and truly my choices, per the existence of my soul.

Why can a supremely knowledgeable being not know in advance (or outside of time altogether) that I'll pick 'left' and 'up'? The choices are truly my own, but I ultimately have to pick one or the other, and I pick 'left'. Why does foreknowledge preclude choice?

It seems like the same sort of error that makes people equate 'random' with 'equally likely'

 

[juvenissun]

Suppose we have a soul, which magically gives us true free will. Time marches on, and we make decisions. I choose left instead of right, up instead of down. These are fully and truly my choices, per the existence of my soul.

Why can a supremely knowledgeable being not know in advance (or outside of time altogether) that I'll pick 'left' and 'up'? The choices are truly my own, but I ultimately have to pick one or the other, and I pick 'left'. Why does foreknowledge preclude choice?

It seems like the same sort of error that makes people equate 'random' with 'equally likely'

By definition, He knows. But like you said, the choice was yours.
What is the problem?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

By definition, He knows. But like you said, the choice was yours.
What is the problem?

What indeed - I'm responding to Dave Ellis.

 

[juvenissun]

Not at all... if there's a being who has full knowledge of the future and has full control over how you are made, any form of free will is impossible.

The choices we make are ultimately linked to how our brains are constructed, biochemistry, etc. If some being is responsible for setting all that up, and has full knowledge of the future, then that being is fully responsible for the decisions made by the person.

He knows does not mean He is in control. Can you tell these two apart?

We do similar thing. A computer program may ask your input in the middle of a run. You make your decision, then the program will continue.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Suppose we have a soul, which magically gives us true free will. Time marches on, and we make decisions. I choose left instead of right, up instead of down. These are fully and truly my choices, per the existence of my soul.

Why can a supremely knowledgeable being not know in advance (or outside of time altogether) that I'll pick 'left' and 'up'? The choices are truly my own, but I ultimately have to pick one or the other, and I pick 'left'. Why does foreknowledge preclude choice?

It seems like the same sort of error that makes people equate 'random' with 'equally likely'

Because if he designs the tools you use to make decisions, then your decisions are ultimately his responsibility.

If God designed your brain, and therefore the way your brain processes information and how it reasons, then your decision is ultimately a result of how God made you. It is not your doing, it's simply how you were made. Choosing any other option is not actually within your control.

You may be aware of other options, but your brain is wired to choose what it is ultimately going to choose. That is beyond your control (this is true even if there is no God).

 

[Dave Ellis]

He knows does not mean He is in control. Can you tell these two apart?

We do similar thing. A computer program may ask your input in the middle of a run. You make your decision, then the program will continue.

If he knows the decisions you will make based on how he designs your brain, then the decisions are actually of his choosing when he makes your brain how it is.

 

[juvenissun]

If he knows the decisions you will make based on how he designs your brain, then the decisions are actually of his choosing when he makes your brain how it is.

We know nothing about that. You are shifting the goalpost.

 

[Dave Ellis]

We know nothing about that. You are shifting the goalpost.

That's not shifting goalposts at all.

We know thoughts and decisions are a result of how our brain operates.

Therefore, if somebody designed that brain a specific way, then the decisions that brain made, are ultimately the responsibility of it's designer.

Even if the designer didn't know what would happen, the decisions made by his creation are still his responsibility. The fact God is supposedly all knowing and timeless makes it even worse.

 

[elopez]

Not at all... if there's a being who has full knowledge of the future and has full control over how you are made, any form of free will is impossible.

First you said a being who knows the future, not that he has full control over how we are made. God is not all - controlling as such. That is not to say by way of divine intervention nothing happens as a result of such, but not all things. Surely foreknowledge does not give way to causation as there is no causal relation, only a correlation.

The choices we make are ultimately linked to how our brains are constructed, biochemistry, etc. If some being is responsible for setting all that up, and has full knowledge of the future, then that being is fully responsible for the decisions made by the person.

I think you're making the mistake in restricting the nature of our choices. Sure we can say that they are linked to how our brains are 'wired,' but that is not all "choice" is. Choice has to do with our desires and reasons for acting, too.

Moral responsibility is connected to our mental capacity for comprehending our reasons for acting and any consequences. Since moral responsibility and free will are connected, free will can be defined in that mental ability sense. That is but just one type of freedom. The other is the ability to act how we desire without any force or prevention from any external or internal force. We choose what to do based on our desires, and we understand those desires and the consequences of our choice. We physically make said choice transpire, a type of agent causation. We are held accountable for what we cause. That is free will.

God has not 'set' all of that up. I would say He has with some things, but not all. Nor does God control our brain in any way that allows for what we do. What God foreknows of is our desires, and what He foreknows does not cause what happens. Free will in the sense above does not conflict with a Deity that knows the future.

 

[Dave Ellis]

First you said a being who knows the future, not that he has full control over how we are made. God is not all - controlling as such. That is not to say by way of divine intervention nothing happens as a result of such, but not all things. Surely foreknowledge does not give way to causation as there is no causal relation, only a correlation.

So you're saying God did not make you?

I think you're making the mistake in restricting the nature of our choices. Sure we can say that they are linked to how our brains are 'wired,' but that is not all "choice" is. Choice has to do with our desires and reasons for acting, too.

Desires and reasoning are actions carried out by the brain, this doesn't address my argument at all. In fact it's a point in favour of it.

Moral responsibility is connected to our mental capacity for comprehending our reasons for acting and any consequences. Since moral responsibility and free will are connected, free will can be defined in that mental ability sense. That is but just one type of freedom. The other is the ability to act how we desire without any force or prevention from any external or internal force. We choose what to do based on our desires, and we understand those desires and the consequences of our choice. We physically make said choice transpire, a type of agent causation. We are held accountable for what we cause. That is free will.

Again, you're linking this all to mental capacity. If God created your brain, then your mental capacity and decision making is a direct result of his design. The decisions your brain will reach are a result of it being made that way.

God has not 'set' all of that up. I would say He has with some things, but not all. Nor does God control our brain in any way that allows for what we do. What God foreknows of is our desires, and what He foreknows does not cause what happens. Free will in the sense above does not conflict with a Deity that knows the future.

Knowing the future in itself doesn't contradict freewill.. however knowing the future, and being responsible for how you are designed does contradict freewill.

For example, say you designed an android, or some other intelligent being. How you program it's brain will determine what decisions it makes. Now pretend you had knowledge of the future, and you programmed your android in a way that you knew there would be a glitch that would lead it to go on a mass shooting rampage 25 years down the road.

If you do not repair that glitch, is that the android's responsibility for the mass shooting, or is it your responsibility? I would argue it's your responsibility. Saying free will coexists with omniscience and creation would argue it's the androids fault. My point is, it's not the androids fault, because it was incapable of choosing any other way than how it was built.

Our brains work essentially the same way, decisions are made in the subconscious. Neurologists have proven that your brain determines what choices and decisions you make before you are consciously aware of them being made. That comes down to your brain structure, you aren't going to choose anything other than you ultimately choose, even being aware of the alternatives. That's just how the brain works at the subconscious level.

 

[dysert]

Not at all... if there's a being who has full knowledge of the future and has full control over how you are made, any form of free will is impossible.

The choices we make are ultimately linked to how our brains are constructed, biochemistry, etc. If some being is responsible for setting all that up, and has full knowledge of the future, then that being is fully responsible for the decisions made by the person.

I think you're making a couple of mistaken assumptions here:

1. This Being would not necessarily have "full control" over how you are made. He may have set the overall design, but He could also allow for random acts of nature to take their course in the development of the brain. For example, I don't think He would build a brain for a baby addicted to crack cocaine.

2. The choices we make are *linked* to how our brains are constructed, but there's not a 100% causality between the two. So the brain could tend to steer us in a certain direction, but our choices are not 100% determined by the electro-chemical reactions. So a person "wired" to be introverted may nevertheless force himself out of his shell on occasion thanks to forces beyond mere biological processes, i.e., the (non-physical) mind.

Because your two assumptions aren't necessarily correct, a person can indeed freely choose actions despite the foreknowledge of the omniscient Being who established the design of the person's brain.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Because if he designs the tools you use to make decisions, then your decisions are ultimately his responsibility.

If God designed your brain, and therefore the way your brain processes information and how it reasons, then your decision is ultimately a result of how God made you. It is not your doing, it's simply how you were made. Choosing any other option is not actually within your control.

You may be aware of other options, but your brain is wired to choose what it is ultimately going to choose. That is beyond your control (this is true even if there is no God).

That is why I started with the premise that we had a 'soul' which magically gave us true free will; I'm interested in whether free will and omniscience can coexist, not whether free will exists at all (though that's an interesting topic in itself).

I also disagree that a mechanical brain necessarily precludes genuine free will; Newton was overturned a long time ago.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I think you're making a couple of mistaken assumptions here:

1. This Being would not necessarily have "full control" over how you are made. He may have set the overall design, but He could also allow for random acts of nature to take their course in the development of the brain. For example, I don't think He would build a brain for a baby addicted to crack cocaine.

This is absurd, the being you are asserting created us, also created nature. He would know what impact nature would have on the brain as well, and he would know through omniscience what his design would lead to.

2. The choices we make are *linked* to how our brains are constructed, but there's not a 100% causality between the two. So the brain could tend to steer us in a certain direction, but our choices are not 100% determined by the electro-chemical reactions. So a person "wired" to be introverted may nevertheless force himself out of his shell on occasion thanks to forces beyond mere biological processes, i.e., the (non-physical) mind.

What exactly is a non-physical mind? Please demonstrate such a thing exists, or this is a baseless assertion.

All available evidence shows that there is indeed a 100% causality between the processes of your brain and your actions.

Because your two assumptions aren't necessarily correct, a person can indeed freely choose actions despite the foreknowledge of the omniscient Being who established the design of the person's brain.

And the omniscient being would know what the choice would be in advance. Likewise, that persons brain would be constructed in a way that he would choose what the omniscient being knows he is going to choose.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That is why I started with the premise that we had a 'soul' which magically gave us true free will; I'm interested in whether free will and omniscience can coexist, not whether free will exists at all (though that's an interesting topic in itself).

You'll have to demonstrate that we have a soul, or I am justified in simply rejecting your premise.

Likewise, even if a soul exists, we have no way of determining if it can "magically" give us free will. That is also a baseless assumption.

I also disagree that a mechanical brain necessarily precludes genuine free will; Newton was overturned a long time ago.

We're going to decide what we're going to decide based on brain chemistry and whatnot. There's plenty of evidence to support that, and no evidence pointing to anything else.

 

[juvenissun]

That's not shifting goalposts at all.

We know thoughts and decisions are a result of how our brain operates.

Therefore, if somebody designed that brain a specific way, then the decisions that brain made, are ultimately the responsibility of it's designer.

Even if the designer didn't know what would happen, the decisions made by his creation are still his responsibility. The fact God is supposedly all knowing and timeless makes it even worse.

The premise is: God does give free will.

You can not thrown out this premise and keep arguing. The issue is NOT whether we have free will or not. The issue is to contrast omnipotence and free will.

 

[dysert]

1. This Being would not necessarily have "full control" over how you are made. He may have set the overall design, but He could also allow for random acts of nature to take their course in the development of the brain. For example, I don't think He would build a brain for a baby addicted to crack cocaine.

This is absurd, the being you are asserting created us, also created nature. He would know what impact nature would have on the brain as well, and he would know through omniscience what his design would lead to.

It's not absurd at all. Yes, God created us, and He also created nature. Furthermore, He knows what's going to happen. The key is that He doesn't always *cause* what's going to happen. For example, He made the human hand. He also made the laws of nature such that it's possible to have fire. He knows what will happen if you stick your hand in the fire (and He knows *whether* you'll stick your hand in the fire), but He doesn't cause you to do it.

Same with the crack baby. He knows that if a pregnant woman is on crack, then her baby will be addicted. But He didn't cause the woman to get on crack, and He didn't cause the baby to be addicted.

2. The choices we make are *linked* to how our brains are constructed, but there's not a 100% causality between the two. So the brain could tend to steer us in a certain direction, but our choices are not 100% determined by the electro-chemical reactions. So a person "wired" to be introverted may nevertheless force himself out of his shell on occasion thanks to forces beyond mere biological processes, i.e., the (non-physical) mind.

What exactly is a non-physical mind? Please demonstrate such a thing exists, or this is a baseless assertion.

Like the other poster said, the mind could be thought of as the soul. It's the non-material thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc., that aren't totally attributable to physical causes. Of course I can't demonstrate that such a thing exists precisely because it's non-material, and we can only demonstrate what's material. In fact, it's presumption on your part that there is no such thing as the immaterial. Just because we can't measure something with our physical senses doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

All available evidence shows that there is indeed a 100% causality between the processes of your brain and your actions.

Again, evidence only deals with the physical world.

And the omniscient being would know what the choice would be in advance. Likewise, that persons brain would be constructed in a way that he would choose what the omniscient being knows he is going to choose.

Once you allow for the possibility of the existence of the immaterial, hard determinism evaporates.

 

[dysert]

We're going to decide what we're going to decide based on brain chemistry and whatnot. There's plenty of evidence to support that, and no evidence pointing to anything else.

No, *you've* decided that. Not everyone else has. There may be some evidence to support the idea that some behavior may be related to some electro-chemical interactions, but that's a loooong way from saying that we know so much about the brain that we could predict someone's behavior from that knowledge. And I maintain that even if our knowledge of the brain were totally complete, we still couldn't predict someone's behavior -- because there's more to behavior than mere brain activity.