Can I do something that God doesn't know about?

[peterrobin]

God knows everything; all you see around you is his creation and existence he made. There is not a leaf that falls that God does not know or already isn't aware of. If you got in a car crash tomorrow, God, in his timelessness, knew that was going to happen, probably as a lesson for your spirit to learn.

And when you pray to Him He already knew what you were going to say and what His response was going to be.

And when He says in the end times "Depart from me" he knew even as the galaxies were formed, that He was saying that to me.

It all seems a bit pointless.

 

[peterrobin]

A better question, if God timelessly knows all that is past, present and to come and God is immanent, could God therefore present you with a piece of paper in the morning describing in detail what you would do for the coming day?

If you got such a piece of paper would you find yourself irresistably doing those things, or would you be able to do otherwise?

Would you at least act surprised?

 

[TeddyKGB]

You're right, I don't. But the Bible does allude to the nature of God in many respects, including along these lines...

Malachi 3:6
I am the Lord, I change not.

2 Timothy 2:13
He abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

James 1:17
Father of lights, with whom is no variableness.

I don't know how to make sense of this. Anything that acts or moves or thinks is changing by any reasonable interpretation. Perhaps it refers to God's morality or character or something, which, in light of the vagaries and complexities of the God(s) of the respective testaments, isn't saying much.

Either way its purpose, intended or not, seems to be to provide a convenient foothold for the ad hoc apologeticist.

I'd call Adam innocent, but not perfect. Perfection must be sustained, not merely having a clean slate for a short duration. Adam was only perfect for a blip in time, but he hadn't reached a perfected state. Thus, temporary perfection isn't really perfection at all.

I did not know of "temporary perfection" until you just mentioned it. It was you, after all, who ironically stated before that "perfection always remains perfection."

Help me out here, Teddy... If we didn't have free will, how would we have any options to make choices? In other words, how is it possible to have available choices without having any free will to make those choices?

"Choice" implies multiple possible outcomes. "Free will" refers to a way to actualize outcomes. It doesn't appear that the former entails the latter.

Let's look at it this way: I have two boxes placed in front of me. My options are the black one or the grey one. Is there a realistic scenario where I could choose one of them while not having free will? How could it be a choice unless I was free to select one or the other? Please outline this for me.

You choose simply by actualizing an outcome. If you are in your car at a 4-way intersection, there are at least 4 outcomes. If God reaches into your brain and causes you to turn right, then you have unfreely chosen to turn right. I use that example because it is hard to argue that God causing a choice is anything but unfree. But whatever else amounts to freedom of will I have not been able to discern.

 

[Triad]

I don't know how to make sense of this. Anything that acts or moves or thinks is changing by any reasonable interpretation.

But within your interpretation you're assuming a priori that a perfect being has to change. Why is that a built-in assumption on your part?

What we're discussing is the condition of perfection. Perfection, by default, suggests no fine-tuning left to be done. The original question which asked whether an omniscient being could choose to stop being omniscient begs the question. The onus is actually on the questioner to give any valid reason why a perfect being would then become unperfect.

I did not know of "temporary perfection" until you just mentioned it. It was you, after all, who ironically stated before that "perfection always remains perfection."

Meaning, a pseudo-perfection. If Adam was without sin for a period of time, that's quite different from being a perfect being. He hadn't even been tested sufficiently yet.

Triad: If we didn't have free will, how would we have any options to make choices? In other words, how is it possible to have available choices without having any free will to make those choices?
Teddy KGB: "Choice" implies multiple possible outcomes. "Free will" refers to a way to actualize outcomes. It doesn't appear that the former entails the latter.

I asked two direct questions which went unanswered. How would you address them?

Can you offer a scenario where we wouldn't have free will but would still have options to make choices?

 

[TeddyKGB]

But within your interpretation you're assuming a priori that a perfect being has to change. Why is that a built-in assumption on your part?

Largely because I have never encountered something, theoretically or otherwise, that does not change.

What we're discussing is the condition of perfection. Perfection, by default, suggests no fine-tuning left to be done. The original question which asked whether an omniscient being could choose to stop being omniscient begs the question. The onus is actually on the questioner to give any valid reason why a perfect being would then become unperfect.

If you can conceive of perfection as a singular quality, then you have the advantage; I cannot. Perfection, as far as I can tell, is contextual. We talk of the perfect game in baseball. I can imagine a perfect arrow - it never misses and always inflicts a killing blow. But when someone asks me to imagine a perfect being... I come up short. Something that "be"s perfectly?

Meaning, a pseudo-perfection. If Adam was without sin for a period of time, that's quite different from being a perfect being. He hadn't even been tested sufficiently yet.

If you'll indulge me a little reductio ad absurdum... If Adam wasn't perfect, then it follows that he was imperfect. Why (or how) did God create an imperfect being?

I asked two direct questions which went unanswered. How would you address them?

I don't understand. I answered the questions as best I could.

Can you offer a scenario where we wouldn't have free will but would still have options to make choices?

I... thought I did just that.

 

[Triad]

Perfection, as far as I can tell, is contextual. We talk of the perfect game in baseball. I can imagine a perfect arrow - it never misses and always inflicts a killing blow. But when someone asks me to imagine a perfect being... I come up short. Something that "be"s perfectly?

Admittedly, the concept of a perfect being does seem to be much more complex than a perfect anything else. Could we distill it to mean that a perfect being always selects the best choice? But then this would require omniscience to have the knowledge sufficient to make those choices.

In what way are you viewing perfection as contextual?

If you'll indulge me a little reductio ad absurdum... If Adam wasn't perfect, then it follows that he was imperfect. Why (or how) did God create an imperfect being?

I would differentiate between making a perfect choice and making the best available choice. If a perfect being creates something that isn't perfect, that's not a direct reflection of the perfection (or lack thereof) of the perfect being. The perfect being is using the available resources.

To create a perfect being, what would the different components be?
1) A being with unlimited potential.
2) A being that can make choices.

In order to meet both criteria, it would be necessary to start with an imperfect being. We are in the process of being made perfect.

Now, not everyone will achieve this end. But a perfect created group of beings could be seen as a group that is being granted its maximum potential.

Why should it be a requirement for a perfect being to always create perfect things anyway? If I am a perfect computer programmer in a given programming language, I may create the ultimate program with flawless code, but that does not mean that the language is also perfect. The programmer doesn't necessarily create the language, but maximizes its use. Does that make some sense, hopefully?

Also, 'create' can also be known as organizing, as opposed to making out of nothing.

I don't understand. I answered the questions as best I could.

I should probably ask them in a different way. I'm probably being a little vague. Can you offer a scenario where we wouldn't have free will but would still have options to make choices? You gave an example of being at an intersection and God making the choice for you of which way to go. That doesn't seem to fit both sets of requirements for the scenario you're suggesting. I think what you're doing inadvertently here is shifting the agent that is making the decisions. For there to be valid choices, I think we could say that the being in question is the one that the choices need to apply to. If I'm at an intersection and there are three possible options for directions to go, but some other entity is controlling my mind, then the choices were not mine but that other entity's. It doesn't seem much good to be saying that Person A can have free will for Person B. The choice has to be with the original agent. So, to rephrase the question...

What's a scenario where you yourself wouldn't have free will but you yourself would still have actual choices?

 

[TeddyKGB]

Admittedly, the concept of a perfect being does seem to be much more complex than a perfect anything else. Could we distill it to mean that a perfect being always selects the best choice? But then this would require omniscience to have the knowledge sufficient to make those choices.

In what way are you viewing perfection as contextual?

Perfection makes no sense without qualification. An example I have used before: God is often described as both perfectly just and perfectly merciful. By common understanding, those qualities are mutually exclusive. An occasional rebuttal holds that God's justice and mercy are different from ours. Such non-answers, of course, serve only to make even thinking about God impossible.

I would differentiate between making a perfect choice and making the best available choice. If a perfect being creates something that isn't perfect, that's not a direct reflection of the perfection (or lack thereof) of the perfect being. The perfect being is using the available resources.

This entails a limiting factor external to the creator. What sorts of constraints could limit the otherwise perfect creator of, well, everything?

To create a perfect being, what would the different components be?
1) A being with unlimited potential.

"Potential" is another empty term by itself. Even when we say, "She has potential," there is an implied predicate; the assumed background might be a sport or an academic discipline.

2) A being that can make choices.

I will note problems with this shortly.

In order to meet both criteria, it would be necessary to start with an imperfect being. We are in the process of being made perfect.

This is tough to follow, especially in light of your previous exhortation that "perfection always remains perfection."

Now, not everyone will achieve this end. But a perfect created group of beings could be seen as a group that is being granted its maximum potential.

Again, potential to what?

Why should it be a requirement for a perfect being to always create perfect things anyway? If I am a perfect computer programmer in a given programming language, I may create the ultimate program with flawless code, but that does not mean that the language is also perfect. The programmer doesn't necessarily create the language, but maximizes its use. Does that make some sense, hopefully?

Yes, but I think it's wrong. You specified yourself a "perfect computer programmer," not a perfect programming language designer. Again, context is everything.

I should probably ask them in a different way. I'm probably being a little vague. Can you offer a scenario where we wouldn't have free will but would still have options to make choices? You gave an example of being at an intersection and God making the choice for you of which way to go. That doesn't seem to fit both sets of requirements for the scenario you're suggesting. I think what you're doing inadvertently here is shifting the agent that is making the decisions. For there to be valid choices, I think we could say that the being in question is the one that the choices need to apply to. If I'm at an intersection and there are three possible options for directions to go, but some other entity is controlling my mind, then the choices were not mine but that other entity's. It doesn't seem much good to be saying that Person A can have free will for Person B. The choice has to be with the original agent. So, to rephrase the question...

What's a scenario where you yourself wouldn't have free will but you yourself would still have actual choices?

I'm going to have to switch directions here, because ultimately I don't understand "free will" and presumably won't be able to satisfy your criteria thereby.

As far as I can tell, there are two broad, mutually exclusive decision-making systems: 1) a choice caused by a series of previous events; 2) a choice not caused by a series of previous events. And anything that isn't caused is random, or at least that's the closest I can come to describing it.

What I keep seeing are allusions to some vague third category of choosing. Something in-between whereby, "I" choose freely but not causally or randomly. I don't have any idea what this choice-making thing might be nor do I feel I've gotten any closer to it after years of digging.

 

[Triad]

Perfection makes no sense without qualification. An example I have used before: God is often described as both perfectly just and perfectly merciful. By common understanding, those qualities are mutually exclusive. An occasional rebuttal holds that God's justice and mercy are different from ours. Such non-answers, of course, serve only to make even thinking about God impossible.

From that standpoint, I think you're correct. And the qualification which it seems to me has to be made is that perfection or completeness in reality doesn't work the same as hypothetical perfection or completeness. Logically, the hypothetical perfection model produces contradictions, as in your apt example.

In reality, I would propose that perfection and completeness entail reaching the optimum level, which also then means optimum balance. All-merciful doesn't really mean forgiving everything, but means having the perfect dose of mercy. A perfect cake doesn't contain a maximum level of flour, a maximum level of butter, a maximum level of eggs, etc. It's going to contain the perfect blend. There are many aspects to life. Perfection would seem to entail putting them in perfect balance so that they complement each other to the best level possible. Which leads us to the next point...

I don't subscribe to the notion that God created justice or mercy, but that they are inherent laws of the universe. An omnipotent being doesn't necessarily have the ability to change things from being impossible to possible. When the Bible states that all things are possible with God, it seems to be from the point of salvation coming forth, rather than from a metaphysical context. After all, God cannot make all evil into good. So it could be said that an omnipotent being can do all things which are possible. Creating a boulder too heavy for one to lift is a paradox, and not logically possible.

This entails a limiting factor external to the creator. What sorts of constraints could limit the otherwise perfect creator of, well, everything?

The creator of the universe need not be the universe itself, but could be an integral part of the universe. In other words, God could still have total control over the workings of the universe while being subject to its inherent conditions. In a similar fashion, we have control over how we think and feel, while being subject to respirating and our hearts beating. If we decide to stop respirating, then we lose the ability for all else.

"Create" in a scriptural context can be seen as "to organize." A site I referenced says the following: "The Hebrew word bara is frequently used of God creating something out of nothing. However, Creation ex nihilo is not necessarily inherent within the meaning of the word."
http://www.hal-pc.org/~tom/creationexnihilo.htm

"Potential" is another empty term by itself. Even when we say, "She has potential," there is an implied predicate; the assumed background might be a sport or an academic discipline.

When I say potential, I mean capability. An acorn has the capability of becoming an oak. It's not automatic, but it can reach such a condition. Likewise, an acorn cannot become a coral reef. It has no such potential.

This is tough to follow, especially in light of your previous exhortation that "perfection always remains perfection."

All right, let me clarify. Perfection in the way I'm presenting it is a state of being. That state can be reached, and once reached, always remains such. Perfection, as I see it, doesn't mean always having been perfect. I apologize for the ambiguous terminology I used earlier. I should have given the disclaimer of "perfection – once reached – always remains perfection."

Yes, but I think it's wrong. You specified yourself a "perfect computer programmer," not a perfect programming language designer. Again, context is everything.

God doesn't have to be the programming language designer though, does He? It makes sense to me that if He were the language designer, He would have eradicated things like evil, or better yet, never allowed it to exist in the first place. But evil exists and must be dealt with. There are additional examples.

As far as I can tell, there are two broad, mutually exclusive decision-making systems: 1) a choice caused by a series of previous events; 2) a choice not caused by a series of previous events. And anything that isn't caused is random, or at least that's the closest I can come to describing it.

OK, I think I'm seeing more of where you're coming from on this. This sounds pretty deep. Can you offer contrasting examples of both so I can see them in the same light?

Also, I'm convinced that randomness is only an illusion, and that nothing can be truly random. Humans cannot identify or create true randomness, but can only hypothesize about it in the abstract sense. There are no working models I know of for randomness. What's your take on this?

What I keep seeing are allusions to some vague third category of choosing. Something in-between whereby, "I" choose freely but not causally or randomly. I don't have any idea what this choice-making thing might be nor do I feel I've gotten any closer to it after years of digging.

OK, let's hold that thought and we'll get back to this. Thanks for your explanations.

 

[Siscon for life]

Yes, you can masturabte, no one wants to see that.