Can omnipotence coexist with free will?

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

It's a premise, not an assumption. The discussion is whether genuine free will can coexist with omniscience, not whether we have free will or not.

The point about presupposing a 'soul' which magically confers genuine free will, is that it side-steps the issue of whether or not we have free will. The point of that, is because it's the topic of the conversation: whether free will can coexist with omniscience. Whether or not we have free will is an interesting topic, but not the one at hand, so your objection (that we don't have free will because our decisions come from the biochemical mechanics of the brain) is moot - whether or not we actually have free will, is not the issue.

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.

Agreed. However, I can only repeat what I said: it is not yet established that a mechanical brain precludes free will. That our concious decisions come from the brain, does not preclude the existence of genuine free will.

 

[Belk]

You got it But it yielded an interesting conversation so I didn't change it.

The only way I can see free will coexisting with omniscience is if omniscience is not knowing what will happen but knowing every single possible outcome. i.e. the future that will come about is indeterminate but every possible future is known.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The only way I can see free will coexisting with omniscience is if omniscience is not knowing what will happen but knowing every single possible outcome. i.e. the future that will come about is indeterminate but every possible future is known.

What if the omniscience knew exactly what outcome you will pick? What if they knew you'd choose left instead of right, up instead of down? Would such foreknowledge preclude it being your own choice?

The way I see it, that the omniscience knows what you will choose doesn't change the fact that it's you who chose that outcome.

 

[elopez]

So you're saying God did not make you?

Um, I think it is fairly obvious God does not 'make' me in any similar fashion that He did with Adam and Eve. I am bore of my mother.

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.

Of course desires and reasoning is carried out by the brain, but that's hardly the point you seem to be missing. We act how we do because we want to, and we act the way we want to because nothing else prevents or forces us.

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.

What is in the bold is purely an assumption that is unsupported. God does not design peoples brains in any way. That one false assumption actually destroys the rest of your argument...

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

This is exactly my point. Like I said, I was responding to a Deity who has knowledge of the future, not a Deity who designs brains. All you said to begin with was the former part, not the latter, and the latter is a false assumption.

 

[keith99]

What if the omniscience knew exactly what outcome you will pick? What if they knew you'd choose left instead of right, up instead of down? Would such foreknowledge preclude it being your own choice?

The way I see it, that the omniscience knows what you will choose doesn't change the fact that it's you who chose that outcome.

And like all the omnis we can use the example of knowing someone well, very well. Many husbands and wifes know eachother well enough that in certian areas can predict with 100% accuracy a decision.

Does that mean one loses free will once you are known as well as those spouses know eachother?

Of course an omnipotent being could limit my free will. So does gravity. I'm not free to fly of my own power. If being limited by what an all powerful being allows then so does being limited by natural law or the power of mortal men.

If one subscribes to that argument then only an omnipotent being has free will. Which means omnipotence and free will are very compatable.

 

[Nim]

If a being can be omniscient, then what we perceive as choice is the product of determinism. You can't create a system with such capabilities based purely on in-determinism anyways though, so that much is a given.

If a being can be omnipotent, then all the choices you have made may have been orchestrated by that being from the very beginning. They may have specifically designed you from the very beginning in such a fashion that the chains of trillions of cause and effect relationships that make up your very nature as you progress through time, would ultimately result in you making all the choices they wanted you to make.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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.

Ok, lets approach this from a different angle then.

We'll agree that if your God exists, then he did indeed create the laws of nature, and all the things you listed above. We'll also assume he knows whether you are going to stick your hand in the fire or not.

So, what is the cause of you sticking your hand in the fire?

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.

If you can't demonstrate what you're postulating actually exists, then what justification do you have to even use that argument?

An immaterial object like you are describing is indistinguishable from the non-existent. I'm not asserting such a thing can not possibly exist, but we're certainly not justified in claiming anything about it, including existence.

Again, evidence only deals with the physical world.

And please show us how you know there is anything else other than the physical world.

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

I am open to the possibility. The problem is, with a complete lack of information on the topic, it's a completely useless idea right now. Why not say the invisible brain pixies are what causes us to make decisions? As absurd as it sounds, it is equally as plausible as your idea.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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.

Actually, I have not decided that, that's what neurologists have discovered. And I am sorry, but I am going to accept the findings of people who have experiments and hard data on the topic over your baseless made up idea.

Is our understanding of the brain complete? No. Do we have a decent amount of understanding? Yes... In fact this area has been heavily researched.

And please, what more is there to behaviour than brain activity?

 

[Dave Ellis]

It's a premise, not an assumption. The discussion is whether genuine free will can coexist with omniscience, not whether we have free will or not.

If that's all the topic is about, then I would agree the existence of an omniscient being by itself does not contradict free will in humans. The two things are unrelated to each other.

So in that sense, a Deistic idea of God does not contradict the idea of free will. However, the Abrahamic idea of God certainly does.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Um, I think it is fairly obvious God does not 'make' me in any similar fashion that He did with Adam and Eve. I am bore of my mother.

I wouldn't call that obvious at all. In fact there's a great many Christians would disagree with you on this point.

Of course desires and reasoning is carried out by the brain, but that's hardly the point you seem to be missing. We act how we do because we want to, and we act the way we want to because nothing else prevents or forces us.

You do realise your second sentence contradicts your first.... right?

What is in the bold is purely an assumption that is unsupported. God does not design peoples brains in any way. That one false assumption actually destroys the rest of your argument...

There was nothing bolded in your reply... so I agree with this line.

So if God did not design people's brains, then what did?

This is exactly my point. Like I said, I was responding to a Deity who has knowledge of the future, not a Deity who designs brains. All you said to begin with was the former part, not the latter, and the latter is a false assumption.

OK, and as I said, if this is a hands off God who did not create anything, that doesn't contradict free will. However, that type of God is not the god that is compatible with Christianity.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The only way I can see free will coexisting with omniscience is if omniscience is not knowing what will happen but knowing every single possible outcome. i.e. the future that will come about is indeterminate but every possible future is known.

But that's not omniscience.

In fact, knowing every single possible outcome is indistinguishable with not knowing anything about the future at all. Basically it leaves God in the position of "anything can happen". That leaves his understanding of the future no better than ours.

 

[Belk]

What if the omniscience knew exactly what outcome you will pick? What if they knew you'd choose left instead of right, up instead of down? Would such foreknowledge preclude it being your own choice?

The way I see it, that the omniscience knows what you will choose doesn't change the fact that it's you who chose that outcome.

It would afford you the illusion of choice. But if it is already determined what you will choose how can you be said to be making a choice? The path is already determined.

 

[Belk]

But that's not omniscience.

In fact, knowing every single possible outcome is indistinguishable with not knowing anything about the future at all. Basically it leaves God in the position of "anything can happen". That leaves his understanding of the future no better than ours.

I disagree. The definition I am going by is

Omniscience : mainly in religion, is the capacity to know everything that there is to know.

If all possible outcomes of every decision are known it would seem to fit this definition to a T. And it is knowing about the future. It is knowing the exact consequences of every action. It does, however, leave God not knowing which of these will be picked. And it would give God an infinitely greater understanding of the future then ours.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I disagree. The definition I am going by is

Omniscience : mainly in religion, is the capacity to know everything that there is to know.

If all possible outcomes of every decision are known it would seem to fit this definition to a T. And it is knowing about the future. It is knowing the exact consequences of every action. It does, however, leave God not knowing which of these will be picked. And it would give God an infinitely greater understanding of the future then ours.

So such a being would not know something. Kind of defeats the definition of omniscient, doesn't it?

 

[Belk]

So such a being would not know something. Kind of defeats the definition of omniscient, doesn't it?

Not really. If it is impossible to know what would be picked because of free will it would not be included in the set {All Knowable things}.

 

[dysert]

Ok, lets approach this from a different angle then.

We'll agree that if your God exists, then he did indeed create the laws of nature, and all the things you listed above. We'll also assume he knows whether you are going to stick your hand in the fire or not.

So, what is the cause of you sticking your hand in the fire?

Simply because I wanted to know what it would feel like. And I don't believe that my desire is deterministic.

If you can't demonstrate what you're postulating actually exists, then what justification do you have to even use that argument?

Just belief that it does exist.

An immaterial object like you are describing is indistinguishable from the non-existent. I'm not asserting such a thing can not possibly exist, but we're certainly not justified in claiming anything about it, including existence.

And please show us how you know there is anything else other than the physical world.

I'm not saying I *know*, just that I *believe*. And of course I can't show it because that would mean it was discernible through the five senses, and what I'm claiming exists is beyond knowing through the senses. It's probably a lot like love. I believe that love exists, but I can't prove it, and nor do I think it's purely deterministic.

I am open to the possibility. The problem is, with a complete lack of information on the topic, it's a completely useless idea right now. Why not say the invisible brain pixies are what causes us to make decisions? As absurd as it sounds, it is equally as plausible as your idea.

One can believe something even without (physical) evidence, just like someone can disbelieve something despite evidence. Belief is a choice. I choose to believe that things like decision making, love, feelings, etc., are derived from something more than just physical phenomena. This belief can't be proved wrong any more than the idea of invisible brain pixies can be proved wrong.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I disagree. The definition I am going by is

Omniscience : mainly in religion, is the capacity to know everything that there is to know.

If all possible outcomes of every decision are known it would seem to fit this definition to a T. And it is knowing about the future. It is knowing the exact consequences of every action. It does, however, leave God not knowing which of these will be picked. And it would give God an infinitely greater understanding of the future then ours.

Right, however what you stated does not jive with the definition. You can't know everything there is to know, if you don't know the choices that person will make.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Simply because I wanted to know what it would feel like. And I don't believe that my desire is deterministic.

And what caused you to want to know what the fire felt like?

Just belief that it does exist.

Oh, well then!

... You do realise you're using the same criteria to determine truth as the Flat Earth Society, right?

I'm not saying I *know*, just that I *believe*. And of course I can't show it because that would mean it was discernible through the five senses, and what I'm claiming exists is beyond knowing through the senses. It's probably a lot like love. I believe that love exists, but I can't prove it, and nor do I think it's purely deterministic.

And I couldn't care less what you believe, I care about what is actually true.

As for love, you actually can demonstrate that someone is in love. Not only through behavioural patterns and biological reactions when they are around the person they love.... but also through brain scans. You can determine if a person is in love or not based on what areas of the brain light up during an fMRI. Furthermore, monitoring the level of dopamine, serotonin, ocytocin and vasopressin when they are with someone will determine if they are feeling love towards that person, and how strongly they are feeling it.

One can believe something even without (physical) evidence, just like someone can disbelieve something despite evidence. Belief is a choice. I choose to believe that things like decision making, love, feelings, etc., are derived from something more than just physical phenomena. This belief can't be proved wrong any more than the idea of invisible brain pixies can be proved wrong.

Of course someone can believe something without evidence. However, belief is not actually a choice.

And the fact it can't be proven wrong is irrelevant, that's called the shifting of the burden of proof fallacy. It's also an argument from ignorance fallacy to simply believe what you want to just because it hasn't been disproven. It simply is a bad way to determine what is true.

The time to believe a claim is after you have justifiable reason to. Once you have demonstrated within a reasonable doubt that your claim is true, then you are justified in believing it.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Not really. If it is impossible to know what would be picked because of free will it would not be included in the set {All Knowable things}.

This is special pleading. "Everything" means "everything, no exceptions".

 

[Belk]

Right, however what you stated does not jive with the definition. You can't know everything there is to know, if you don't know the choices that person will make.

Can you show that the choices you will make in the future are knowable? I know that I can not. I can make an educated guess about what I will choose but until I make a choice I do not know what I will choose.

Now we are speculating about a concept for which we have no empirical evidence. It is an abstract concept that we have come up with our self. To claim that something must be included in the concept when it is not explicitly stated in the definition seems rather premature to me. But please, if you have some reason to believe choices can be included in the set of all knowable things, present if.