Can omnipotence coexist with free will?

[Belk]

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

Very well. Present your reasoning for why choices should be included in something that is knowable.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Very well. Present your reasoning for why choices should be included in something that is knowable.

Because you're begging the question. You're defining choices as not knowable from the outset, purely so it doesn't have to be included in the set of knowable things.

It doesn't even matter whether it's "knowable". Omniscient means you know everything, not just the easy things. The burden of proof on this one is on you. "Everything" means everything, unless proven otherwise.

 

[Belk]

Because you're begging the question. You're defining choices as not knowable from the outset, purely so it doesn't have to be included in the set of knowable things.

Yes, that is what I am doing. I'm defining it as such simply because it is the only way I can see omniscience being and free will coexisting. It is possible if Omniscience is a thing that choices could be part of it. In which case I do not believe we have free will.

It doesn't even matter whether it's "knowable". Omniscient means you know everything, not just the easy things. The burden of proof on this one is on you. "Everything" means everything, unless proven otherwise.

Burden of proof? Proven? Are you kidding me here? We are talking about an abstract concept which we have exactly zero empirical evidence for. This whole thing is simply an interesting philosophical question. It is really nothing more then mental masturbation.

And no, per the definition I am going by omniscience does not mean "everything" , It means everything that is knowable. I simply posited that the choices we make are not knowable as a means of getting around the predetermined / Free will dilemma. We have no idea if omniscience is even possible let alone what would be included in the set of all knowable things.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Yes, that is what I am doing. I'm defining it as such simply because it is the only way I can see omniscience being and free will coexisting. It is possible if Omniscience is a thing that choices could be part of it. In which case I do not believe we have free will.

I don't see the point of any further discussion following this.

 

[Belk]

I don't see the point of any further discussion following this.

No worries. Since we have no way of knowing what Omniscience truly means there was no real point to the discussion to begin with.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

No worries. Since we have no way of knowing what Omniscience truly means there was no real point to the discussion to begin with.

I know exactly what "omniscient" means.

 

[Belk]

I know exactly what "omniscient" means.

You do? Well shoot, that blows my simple knowledge of the definition and speculation on what might or might not be "knowable" out of the water. I yield the floor to you good sir. Please, by all means, expound upon how you came upon this wondrous knowledge of the inner workings of omniscience.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

You do? Well shoot, that blows my simple knowledge of the definition and speculation on what might or might not be "knowable" out of the water. I yield the floor to you good sir. Please, by all means, expound upon how you came upon this wondrous knowledge of the inner workings of omniscience.

Omniscient means you know EVERYTHING.

 

[Belk]

Omniscient means you know EVERYTHING.

Cool! So an omniscient being would know even those things it is not possible to know?

 

[Max S Cherry]

Omniscient means you know EVERYTHING.

Cool! So an omniscient being would know even those things it is not possible to know?

Belk, since this is an interesting philosophical question, I would like to know how you can pose your question in response to Mr. P's statement. In the existence he is discussing, there exists an omniscient being, and he tells you that this being knows everything. It seems that in the existence being discussed "things that are impossible to know" do not exist.

How can your question make sense under the circumstances?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Omniscient means you know EVERYTHING.

That's one definition. Another, more prevalent one, is that omniscience is where you know everything knowable. Just as how omnipotence is the ability to do anything doable, etc.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Cool! So an omniscient being would know even those things it is not possible to know?

Yes. Which is why in my view, omniscience, like omnipotence, is not a realistic possibility so much as a theoretical one.

Belk, since this is an interesting philosophical question, I would like to know how you can pose your question in response to Mr. P's statement. In the existence he is discussing, there exists an omniscient being, and he tells you that this being knows everything. It seems that in the existence being discussed "things that are impossible to know" do not exist.

How can your question make sense under the circumstances?

Well, there are a lot of things that are unknowable to us. Fortunately, omniscience does not limit itself to humanity's failings.

That's one definition. Another, more prevalent one, is that omniscience is where you know everything knowable. Just as how omnipotence is the ability to do anything doable, etc.

What exactly is "knowability"?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What exactly is "knowability"?

The proof of, under standard definitions, "1 + 1 = 2", is knowable.
The proof of, under standard definitions, "1 + 1 = 3", is unknowable.

'Knowability' means it's capable of being known. Some things are, some things aren't. Omniscience is where one's knowledge (the things one knows) encompasses the full set of the former.

 

[Belk]

Belk, since this is an interesting philosophical question, I would like to know how you can pose your question in response to Mr. P's statement. In the existence he is discussing, there exists an omniscient being, and he tells you that this being knows everything. It seems that in the existence being discussed "things that are impossible to know" do not exist.

How can your question make sense under the circumstances?

Mostly I think it is a disagreement of definition. I am going on the definition of omniscience being "Knowing all knowable things". He is using the definition "Knowing everything". Since omniscience is a currently an abstract concept that we do not know if it exists this is the point were our differences break down since it is impossible to know which one of us has the correct definition.

 

[Belk]

Yes. Which is why in my view, omniscience, like omnipotence, is not a realistic possibility so much as a theoretical one.

Fair enough. Frankly I find the idea of omniscience highly unlikely even given my definition.

Well, there are a lot of things that are unknowable to us. Fortunately, omniscience does not limit itself to humanity's failings.

Unfortunately one of the things that is unknowable to us is exactly what omniscience is and what exactly what things it would encompass.

What exactly is "knowability"?

 

[elopez]

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

Do you think we are born or does God creates us? There isn't much to disagree with, as there are two simple things: one, we are born from our mothers. Two, we are not 'created' in the same way Adam and Eve were. In that case, what sense does God create one?

Even then, yes I realize there are those who disagree. And, so what? It's expected.

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

No. Simply saying it does means nothing, either.

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

Yes I forgot that part, and I was referring to "If God created your brain." That is false. God does not design our brains a certain way. He can have affect our brain to cause to do certain things that we would otherwise not do, like good deeds.

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

Course of nature. Again God can influence us which would have to deal with our brain, yet God does not design it any certain way from the beginning of our existence.

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.

Well, I am not saying God did not create anything, just that He does not create our brain. There are some things God has not created, and that is okay, just as it is to say that God cannot lie and is still omnipotent. "Lying" is not a display of power but weakness, and so to exhibit it would be a defect.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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.

Because by causation, you must by necessity know what decisions are made, to be aware of what the future options will be.

If you have no idea what choices someone will made, you will have no idea what the impact of those choices will be. Therefore by knowing all available options, you must know what choice was made to make those options available in the first place.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Fair enough. Frankly I find the idea of omniscience highly unlikely even given my definition.



Unfortunately one of the things that is unknowable to us is exactly what omniscience is and what exactly what things it would encompass.

Just as another point, assuming this God we're talking about created the universe, then the idea that something exists that is unknowable to him is absurd. He created the universe, so logically he should be fully aware of everything in it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Do you think we are born or does God creates us? There isn't much to disagree with, as there are two simple things: one, we are born from our mothers. Two, we are not 'created' in the same way Adam and Eve were. In that case, what sense does God create one?

Even then, yes I realize there are those who disagree. And, so what? It's expected.

I'm an Atheist, therefore I don't believe God creates us as in my opinion, he doesn't exist.

However, I'm arguing from within the scope of Christian Theology. Many Christians believe God is indeed responsible for designing you. How many times have you heard a new mother call their baby a gift from God?

You may not be designed the same way as Adam was... seeing as he was supposedly made out of dirt. Likewise, Eve was supposedly made from a rib. Surprisingly, biologists have determined that this is not factually correct!

However, what's to stop God from creating a specific sperm and egg with a particular genetic code, then ensure those two meet up and implant, therefore creating you?

Yes I forgot that part, and I was referring to "If God created your brain." That is false. God does not design our brains a certain way. He can have affect our brain to cause to do certain things that we would otherwise not do, like good deeds.

Can you please cite your evidence? How do you know this?

Course of nature. Again God can influence us which would have to deal with our brain, yet God does not design it any certain way from the beginning of our existence.

And who created nature?

Well, I am not saying God did not create anything, just that He does not create our brain. There are some things God has not created, and that is okay, just as it is to say that God cannot lie and is still omnipotent. "Lying" is not a display of power but weakness, and so to exhibit it would be a defect.

This is false, God does lie in the Bible. For example he told Adam and Eve that eating the apple would cause them to die. This was not true, he simply got [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed off and threw them out of the garden.

... Which of course you figure an omniscient God would have been aware of in advance, and put the tree somewhere that they couldn't have gotten to it. But hey, maybe God isn't a very good designer either! Is it possible to be omnipotent and still be a poor landscaper?

 

[Belk]

Because by causation, you must by necessity know what decisions are made, to be aware of what the future options will be.

If you have no idea what choices someone will made, you will have no idea what the impact of those choices will be. Therefore by knowing all available options, you must know what choice was made to make those options available in the first place.

No, not really. You would simply need to know every option that might be available and all of the ramifications of those options. I see no need to know what choice will be made to know what the impact of the choice would be. You would simply need to know the impact of every possible choice that could be made.