Omniscience causal

[quatona]

That is not logical. If I know ahead of time what you are going to chose how does that eliminate your being the one that choses? I don't know how your debate with stumpjumper came out but it sounds like you have yet to get it right.

Sure, elman, if you say so.
The fact that an action and its result is perfectly known ahead of time, means exactly that it can only happen this way. The person cannot choose not to do this action, because then the foreknowledge would be wronged. There is only one possible result, and this means there is no choice. Notwithstanding the fact that the actor may well perceive to have a choice.
Of course, all this is just hypothetical, because such things never happen in real life. If a guy would follow you day and night, telling you ahead of time in every detail what you will do and say and "choose"next, every second, day in day out, for years, I´m sure you´d have serious doubt that you are the determining agent in your choices.
In fact, we distinguish those things that are not choices exactly by constituting that they are perfectly predictable. I know that growing or not growing a third leg is not a matter of choice, exactly because the result of this attempt is 100% predictable - it is known.

But, as I already told stumpjumper, I have lost interest in the question of "free will". It´s futile. I perceive options, therefore for practical purposes I go with the choices I perceive (no matter whether I have them - from a hypothetically objective point of view - or not). Where I perceive choices, I do what I perceive as making them, and where I don´t perceive choices, I can´t do what I would perceive as making choices. Where I perceive myself as having a responsibility I will try to act accordingly, where I don´t perceive such, I can´t. I cannot make any statement as to where and when other persons perceive which options and choices, so I have no basis for making statements about that. If I see options that someone else apparently doesn´t see, I will notify him. If in retrospective I feel that in a certain situation there were other, better options (from my current viewpoint and knowledge) - bad luck. I didn´t see these options back then, I didn´t perceive the choice to do them, and hence I didn´t have it.
I leave the entirely abstract question whether "free will" is the conditio humaine to those who need "free will" for to excuse their Gods as not being responsible for Their creations, which They exerted in full knowledge of the outcome, and to those who want to have a basis for making value judgements about their fellow creatures. Not to forget those who want to disprove the existence of Gods.
As for now, I don´t see any other possible reasons for being concerned with this question, and I am not interested in the above ones.
If you think I am missing something important by ignoring this question, please let me know.
Greetings
quatona

 

[Danhalen]

This simply not reasonable. An omnipotent God is able to create a being with the ability to chose freely to love or not love and being also omniscient, the God can know ahead of time what that being is going to chose.

If the omniscient being knows - ahead of time - what the created being is going to choose, can the created being choose to do something the omniscient being does not know?

The knowledge is totally unconected to and does not cause the choice which is made.

I never said there was a connection to causality. The issue is: if foreknowledge of an event is perfect, then it is not possible for there to be a different outcome of said event. If there can be only one possible outcome of an event, then there is only one way in which the event unfolds.

The being with the ability to chose, continues to have multiple choices they could make and that remains true even when some other being knows what choice they are going to make.

A choice implies options - you cannot choose between one thing. If there is only one possible outcome there is no choice.

Right at the last minute the chosing being can change their mind, but if they do, the Creator would have known they were going to change their mind.

Nothing changes. Even if the created being chooses to take a different path, the omniscient being knows ahead of time. Therefore there is only one option still.

Again, the Creator is not the cause of their changing their mind and the knowledge of the Creaotor is not the cause of the mind chang. The Created is the cause of the mind change and the choice.

Again, I never said foreknowledge necessitates causality. Foreknowledge of events necessitates the omission of options to choose from.

Where am I being unreasonable in my assertion?

 

[elman]

If the omniscient being knows - ahead of time - what the created being is going to choose, can the created being choose to do something the omniscient being does not know?

That does not mean it is not the choice of the created Being. That simply means the omniiscient being always knows what the created being is going to do.

I never said there was a connection to causality. The issue is: if foreknowledge of an event is perfect, then it is not possible for there to be a different outcome of said event. If there can be only one possible outcome of an event, then there is only one way in which the event unfolds.

As long as the only outcome that can occur is the outcome chosen by the person in question, that person has free will.

A choice implies options - you cannot choose between one thing. If there is only one possible outcome there is no choice.

The choser has options, The knowing of what that choice is going to be does not change that.

Nothing changes. Even if the created being chooses to take a different path, the omniscient being knows ahead of time. Therefore there is only one option still.

But the one option is not determined by anything but the choice of the created being-thus free will.

Again, I never said foreknowledge necessitates causality. Foreknowledge of events necessitates the omission of options to choose from.

No the choice is always there and foreknowledge does not necessatate the ommision of that choice.

 

[elman]

Sure, elman, if you say so.

The fact that an action and its result is perfectly known ahead of time, means exactly that it can only happen this way. The person cannot choose not to do this action, because then the foreknowledge would be wronged. There is only one possible result, and this means there is no choice.

That there can be only one result does not mean no choice if the one result is the choce.

Notwithstanding the fact that the actor may well perceive to have a choice.

And the actor rightly perceives it as a choice since that is exactly what it is. You wrongly perceive the forknowledge controlled the choice. It did not.

Of course, all this is just hypothetical, because such things never happen in real life. If a guy would follow you day and night, telling you ahead of time in every detail what you will do and say and "choose"next, every second, day in day out, for years, I´m sure you´d have serious doubt that you are the determining agent in your choices.

That is not our hyposthetical. In the hypothetical the choser does not know what the forknowledge person knows.

In fact, we distinguish those things that are not choices exactly by constituting that they are perfectly predictable. I know that growing or not growing a third leg is not a matter of choice, exactly because the result of this attempt is 100% predictable - it is known.

Of course we are unable to chose everything or anything as there are limitations on our ability. That proves nothing.

But, as I already told stumpjumper, I have lost interest in the question of "free will". It´s futile. I perceive options, therefore for practical purposes I go with the choices I perceive (no matter whether I have them - from a hypothetically objective point of view - or not). Where I perceive choices, I do what I perceive as making them, and where I don´t perceive choices, I can´t do what I would perceive as making choices. Where I perceive myself as having a responsibility I will try to act accordingly, where I don´t perceive such, I can´t. I cannot make any statement as to where and when other persons perceive which options and choices, so I have no basis for making statements about that. If I see options that someone else apparently doesn´t see, I will notify him. If in retrospective I feel that in a certain situation there were other, better options (from my current viewpoint and knowledge) - bad luck. I didn´t see these options back then, I didn´t perceive the choice to do them, and hence I didn´t have it.

I see nothing different from any of the rest of us.

I leave the entirely abstract question whether "free will" is the conditio humaine to those who need "free will" for to excuse their Gods as not being responsible for Their creations, which They exerted in full knowledge of the outcome, and to those who want to have a basis for making value judgements about their fellow creatures. Not to forget those who want to disprove the existence of Gods.

I don't need free will to excuse God. I use free will to thank God for life and the opportunity to love and perhaps with His help live again. God does not need me to defend Him.

 

[Natro]

That does not mean it is not the choice of the created Being. That simply means the omniiscient being always knows what the created being is going to do.
As long as the only outcome that can occur is the outcome chosen by the person in question, that person has free will.
The choser has options, The knowing of what that choice is going to be does not change that.
But the one option is not determined by anything but the choice of the created being-thus free will.
No the choice is always there and foreknowledge does not necessatate the ommision of that choice.

A choice means there are options(actualy options not perceived options). Its more like a act then a choice.

No that person has the freedom to make the action determined not freely make the choice.

No the choser precieves options(they are just a illusion) but they are not realy choosing what happens mearly doing what will be done.

Yes it is since it existed befor the outcome existed befor the being even existed means that the being could not possibly make the choice.

You confusing the ability to take a action with the ability to choose.

 

[quatona]

That there can be only one result does not mean no choice if the one result is the choce.

No. The result is the result, and it is know.

And the actor rightly perceives it as a choice since that is exactly what it is.

Ipse dixit.

You wrongly perceive the forknowledge controlled the choice. It did not.

No, I don´t. This is not my position. My position is that foreknowledge indicates a lack of choice.

That is not our hyposthetical. In the hypothetical the choser does not know what the forknowledge person knows.

It doesn´t make any difference. It just demonstrates the problem.

Of course we are unable to chose everything or anything as there are limitations on our ability. That proves nothing.

I´m afraid, my point did not come across.

I see nothing different from any of the rest of us.

Then there is nothing to discuss.

I don't need free will to excuse God. I use free will to thank God for life and the opportunity to love and perhaps with His help live again. God does not need me to defend Him.

Well, if "free will" plays no important part in your apologetics and your theological position, and I am not interested either, we can simply put the discussion to rest.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

there simply is no choice- if the person ACTUALLY had the choice, then there is the possibility of god being wrong.

secondly, it doesn't matter... even if there is a choice, god remains responsible

 

[Danhalen]

That does not mean it is not the choice of the created Being. That simply means the omniiscient being always knows what the created being is going to do.

Why don't you answer the question rather than assuming my response? Again, can the created being choose to do something the omniscient being does not know?

As long as the only outcome that can occur is the outcome chosen by the person in question, that person has free will.

The outcome is not chosen if there is only one possible outcome.

The choser has options, The knowing of what that choice is going to be does not change that.

Can the choser select an option not known by the omniscient being? Please answer this question directly.

But the one option is not determined by anything but the choice of the created being-thus free will.

The problem being: there is no such thing as choosing between one option. If only one course of action is available to you, you do not get to choose whether or not you do it.

No the choice is always there and foreknowledge does not necessatate the ommision of that choice.

Rather than just claiming this is so, do you care to demonstrate how this is possible?

 

[elman]

there simply is no choice- if the person ACTUALLY had the choice, then there is the possibility of god being wrong.

No reasonable or logical. If the choice is mine I have free will and God can know what it is going to be and be right about what He knows.

secondly, it doesn't matter... even if there is a choice, god remains responsible

Why would God be responsble for you making a bad choice?

 

[Natro]

No reasonable or logical. If the choice is mine I have free will and God can know what it is going to be and be right about what He knows.

Why would God be responsble for you making a bad choice?

You still confusing a actual choice with a predetermined action.

Because the guy who knocks over the first domino is responsible for the last domino falling over not the first domino.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

i don't think you have any conception of reason or logic.

if god is the creator who has all power and all knowledge, then he is responsible for everything in his creation. he created everything IN A CERTAIN WAY knowing how it would turn out. he has all power, so he could have created it a different way, and it would have turned out differently, as he knew (since he has all knowledge.)

your argument that free will can exist with the foreknowledge of god (which doesn't make sense) still doesn't help the argument at all- if it is possible to have free will and the foreknowledge of god, it doesn't change the fact that he created the universe knowing that you would choose him and I wouldn't- but could have created it so we both did.


he is still responsible since he created the universe in such a way knowing what choice i would make- and could have made a universe (according to your "logic") in which I still had free will but would have chosen him. He could have created a universe (again, if it is granted that free will and omniscience can co-exist) where everyone had free will, but everyone would choose him.

In fact, god's power and omniscience implies that this is actually the best of all possible universes, or that god is evil. God knew how it would turn out, and created it is such a way that it turned out this way. Everything that happens is God's will, since he is the first cause for everything in the Universe, and could have created it any way he wanted. The entire universe is God's responsibility.


but all this is meaningless. If god's omniscience is perfect, there simply IS NO CHOICE. you cannot escape it. Choice implies that there are multiple possible outcomes. There are not if God knows everything that will happen, because that means that everyrthing is already determined. there are no possible outcomes for anything- there is only one.

 

[elman]

Quote
Originally Posted by: elman

That does not mean it is not the choice of the created Being. That simply means the omniiscient being always knows what the created being is going to do.

Why don't you answer the question rather than assuming my response? Again, can the created being choose to do something the omniscient being does not know?

No. Now read my response. That is not determintive of free will.
Quote

As long as the only outcome that can occur is the outcome chosen by the person in question, that person has free will.

The outcome is not chosen if there is only one possible outcome.

Why not if the outcome that is possible is the one chosen?

Quote

The choser has options, The knowing of what that choice is going to be does not change that.

Can the choser select an option not known by the omniscient being? Please answer this question directly.

See above. For the third time, no.
Quote

But the one option is not determined by anything but the choice of the created being-thus free will.

The problem being: there is no such thing as choosing between one option. If only one course of action is available to you, you do not get to choose whether or not you do it.

The fact that your choice is known ahead of time does not mean you had only one option. There is no reasonable connection between the foreknowledge and the elimination of option, if the foreknowledge is about which option you will chose.
Quote

No the choice is always there and foreknowledge does not necessatate the ommision of that choice.

Rather than just claiming this is so, do you care to demonstrate how this is possible?

You have given no logical or reasonable reason to believe it to be impossible. Do you care to logically and reasonably show why simply foreknowing what someone is going to chose to do results in the party chosing not chosing?

 

[elman]

there simply is no choice- if the person ACTUALLY had the choice, then there is the possibility of god being wrong.

Not reasonable or logical. If the choice is mine I have free will and God can know what it is going to be and be right about what He knows.

secondly, it doesn't matter... even if there is a choice, god remains responsible

Why would God be responsble for you making a bad choice?

 

[elman]

i don't think you have any conception of reason or logic.

if god is the creator who has all power and all knowledge, then he is responsible for everything in his creation. he created everything IN A CERTAIN WAY knowing how it would turn out. he has all power, so he could have created it a different way, and it would have turned out differently, as he knew (since he has all knowledge.)

Maybe an all knowing God created things in the best possible way to achieve His purposes. Perhaps someone like you and I having less than complete knowledge are not able to dream up a better alternative. If God created you with the ability to chose right and wrong, He is not responsible if you chose wrong. You are responsible, not God. His knowledge of what you are going to do has nothing to do with that. Your chosing wrong and the consequences of your wrong choice may be what influences someone else to chose right. In either event it is the responsiblity of the person have the choice.

your argument that free will can exist with the foreknowledge of god (which doesn't make sense) still doesn't help the argument at all- if it is possible to have free will and the foreknowledge of god, it doesn't change the fact that he created the universe knowing that you would choose him and I wouldn't- but could have created it so we both did.

Your argument that free will is removed from existence if God knew what you were going to chose does not make sense. Why would His knowing what you were going to do remove free will if in fact you freely chose what you wished? If God created a world in which no one could chose wrong, then we would have a world in which the right choice would not exist either. We would be programed robots. That is not how we are. That world would serve no purpose and be of value to no one.

he is still responsible since he created the universe in such a way knowing what choice i would make- and could have made a universe (according to your "logic") in which I still had free will but would have chosen him. He could have created a universe (again, if it is granted that free will and omniscience can co-exist) where everyone had free will, but everyone would choose him.

No it is not according to my logic that He could have created a universe with free will but no ability to chose wrong. That may be your logic but it is not mine. I am saying free will includes the ability to chose wrong.

In fact, god's power and omniscience implies that this is actually the best of all possible universes, or that god is evil. God knew how it would turn out, and created it is such a way that it turned out this way. Everything that happens is God's will, since he is the first cause for everything in the Universe, and could have created it any way he wanted. The entire universe is God's responsibility.

If God creates you with the ability to chose wrong then chosing wrong is your responsiblity, not God's.

but all this is meaningless. If god's omniscience is perfect, there simply IS NO CHOICE. you cannot escape it. Choice implies that there are multiple possible outcomes. There are not if God knows everything that will happen, because that means that everyrthing is already determined. there are no possible outcomes for anything- there is only one.

The question on free will is can you chose multiple outcomes. If the answer is yes you have free will. God knowing what you are going to chose does not change that logically or reasonably. Yes there can be only one result and that result is the result you freely chose and could have chosen differently. It is not the foreknowled that determines the result. It is your choice that determines the result. Why then if it is your choice can you argue it is not your choice?

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

sorry, bad post

 

[elman]

A choice means there are options(actualy options not perceived options). Its more like a act then a choice.

No that person has the freedom to make the action determined not freely make the choice.

No the choser precieves options(they are just a illusion) but they are not realy choosing what happens mearly doing what will be done.

Yes it is since it existed befor the outcome existed befor the being even existed means that the being could not possibly make the choice.

You confusing the ability to take a action with the ability to choose.

The ability to chose to take an action is the issue. You are separating the ability to take an action from the ability to chose to take an action and they are the same, not different. In this case we are talking about an action determined by the choice, not by the foreknowledge of what the choice would be. We are chosing what happens which is the same thing as what will be done if you are talkiing about foreknowledge of what choice we would make.

 

[Natro]

The ability to chose to take an action is the issue. You are separating the ability to take an action from the ability to chose to take an action and they are the same, not different. In this case we are talking about an action determined by the choice, not by the foreknowledge of what the choice would be. We are chosing what happens which is the same thing as what will be done if you are talkiing about foreknowledge of what choice we would make.

Thats not actual choice thats the illusion of choice. When there is foreknowledge there are just actions with the illusion of choice covering it, no actual choices.

 

[elman]

Quote
Originally Posted by: elman


That there can be only one result does not mean no choice if the one result is the choce.

No. The result is the result, and it is know.

I agree and the knowing is not the cause of the result. The cause of the result is the choice, not the knowing.

Quote

And the actor rightly perceives it as a choice since that is exactly what it is.

Ipse dixit.

Please respond in a language I can understand.

Quote

You wrongly perceive the forknowledge controlled the choice. It did not.

No, I don´t. This is not my position. My position is that foreknowledge indicates a lack of choice.

Why is that true? I don't think it is true.

Quote

That is not our hypothetical. In the hypothetical the choser does not know what the forknowledge person knows.

It doesn´t make any difference. It just demonstrates the problem.

It does make a difference and it does not demostrate our discussion and your perceived problem.
Quote

Quote

I don't need free will to excuse God. I use free will to thank God for life and the opportunity to love and perhaps with His help live again. God does not need me to defend Him.

Well, if "free will" plays no important part in your apologetics and your theological position, and I am not interested either, we can simply put the discussion to rest.

How do you jump to these conclusions? I said nothing about free will playing no part in my theological position.

 

[elman]

Thats not actual choice thats the illusion of choice. When there is foreknowledge there are just actions with the illusion of choice covering it, no actual choices.

No the foreknowledge is not of an illusion but of a real choice. The choices are not illusion but real. Why would you think foreknowledge changes an actual choice into an illusion of a choice?

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

this argument is pointless. elman refuses to acknowledge the basic logic of the position.

if god knows what will happen, then the outcome of the event is already determined. plain and simple. any choice is only an illusion