Omnscience AND freewill???

[Grega]

This thread is inspired by numerous responses to another thread of mine whereby the real thrust of my question is avoided by alluding to what I feel is a contradiction...that god is omniscient AND we have freewill.
I suppose first I should define what I mean by omniscient here... your god exists outside of time and can see all points on our timeline, ie: he can see the end AND the beginning of his creations simultaneously (as well as all points in between) (note: this seems to be the concensus of opinion, hence my definition)

I ask of you what is wrong with the following argument, and given that you find something wrong I expect it will be a disagreement with one of my premises, defnitions, or a conclusion derived thereafter...in either case would you be kind enough to explain (in detail, and specifying where) how you think I have gone wrong?


(Definitions:
Omniscient: as given above in red
our timeline: the continuous series of points in time starting from the beginning of the universe to the end of the universe we exist in
X[sub]i[/sub]: some arbitrary action performed by me (where 'i' denotes an integer (negative or non-negative natural number), and each action is a composition of many actions whereby everything I do at a specific sub-interval on the timeline is contained in X[sub]i[/sub])
Please excuse my usage of variables X[sub]i[/sub]...if I try to say everything in "human terms" then I see the opportunity for confusion when I try to cover my bases.
I just ask that where ever you see X with a number below it, convince yourself that this just denotes some arbitrary action I perform and that it is different or occurs at a different time to an X with a different number below it.


(Premises:
Your god created the universe
[*]
I did not exist as a physical entity capable of performing at least one X[sub]i[/sub] for all points in our timeline[**]
Your god is omniscient [***]
your god does not contradict itself [****]
I cannot do both X[sub]i[/sub] AND X[sub]j[/sub] given that i=/=j [*****])

1) Your god creates the universe we exist in (from
[*])
2) Your god created our timeline (from 1)
3) There exists a point on this timeline for which I did not exist as a physical entity capable of performing any X[sub]i[/sub](from [**])
4) Your god sees me perform X[sub]0[/sub] at somepoint on the timeline and sees all other points on the timeline from ([***])
5) From the point in our timeline where I was created all actions that I perform must result in fulfilling your god's vision that I performed X[sub]0[/sub]...For X[sub]0[/sub]=/=X[sub]1[/sub] it cannot be true that your god sees me doing X[sub]0[/sub] and I instead do X[sub]1[/sub] (else he would have seen me do X[sub]1[/sub]!) (from [****],[*****],4)
6) X[sub]0[/sub] is an arbitrary action, so all actions X[sub]1[/sub],X[sub]2[/sub],...,X[sub]n[/sub] I perform in order to fulfill your god's vision of me doing X[sub]0[/sub] must also be seen (for you could have chosen any of these to be X[sub]0[/sub] instead) (from 4,5)
7) Therefore I must behave in precisely the way your god saw me behave before I was created ie: there exists a fixed sequence of actions I must perform such that I eventually perform X[sub]0[/sub], and I define this to be a script. (from 3,4,6)
8) Your god created the universe, and our timeline therefore your god created the script defined in 7 (from 1,2,7)
9) I have no real free will since all my actions were determined beforehand by your god (from 7, 8)

I say that the way out of this problem is to realise that your gods omniscience implies that we have no freewill (only pseudo-freewill from our perspective).
I say that if we have freewill, then the existence of a god that is omniscient in the way generally held to be true is not viable



*edit: I typoed the title

 

[Jessica Lauren]

I'll reply to the rest later but in regards to the free will thing:. God does have a plan for us. But he gave us free will. We decide if we will let his plan happen or not. If we don't, we can end up in hell. When people say God knows everything we do in our future, I think that just means God has a future planned out for us. . . and if we follow his plan, we will reach what he sees in our future for us (meet our potential).

 

[Grega]

I'll reply to the rest later but in regards to the free will thing:. God does have a plan for us. But he gave us free will. We decide if we will let his plan happen or not. If we don't, we can end up in hell. When people say God knows everything we do in our future, I think that just means God has a future planned out for us. . . and if we follow his plan, we will reach what he sees in our future for us (meet our potential).

I'll reply to the rest later but in regards to the free will thing:. God does have a plan for us. But he gave us free will. We decide if we will let his plan happen or not. If we don't, we can end up in hell. When people say God knows everything we do in our future, I think that just means God has a future planned out for us. . . and if we follow his plan, we will reach what he sees in our future for us (meet our potential)
But then your god cannot have seen that we do X when we might instead do Y...If god sees us do X then we must do X...ie your formulation of god isn't omniscient

Say that your god is omniscient and we have a problem, in such case I'd ask you to identify where the argument in my OP is wrong
If you agree that your god isn't omniscient then I have no problem with your response here.

 

[Emmy]

Dear Grega. Every time you say "your god," why the distinction? Do you not believe that you were made ( in God`s image?) as we all are? I cannot help wonder, How were you made? I ask this humbly and kindly, Grega? Omniscience does belong to God, and free will is ours, God-given and precious. and I do admit that I do not understand your X questions. Omniscience and free will is straightforward, God is not only All-powerful, He is also All-knowing. And to think that we have free will to do whatever we like, is quite mindbogling. However, God`s Holy Law stands forever, and God`s Commandments do too. Every time we follow God`s loving advice to us, we will be rewarded, and every time we ignore, or even disregard God`s loving advice to us, we will pay the consequences. What could be fairer than that? May I also point out, Jesus told us, (while on Earth) " Unless ye believe as children do, ye will not enter God`s Kingdom." And being Christians, we look forward to following Christ back to our home with God. This may not answer your Xs, Grega, but it answers God`s Omniscience And freewill. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[Chesterton]

A problem with your #3, based on your 2nd premise - Did you really ever not exist? You are part of a flowing series of matter and energy, brought about by a particular combination of parental sperm and egg, but can you definitely say you were not contained from the beginning of #1 (*)?

It’s something to consider. I think of two things: the ending of Lewis’ “The Great Divorce”, where at the end of all time, a human discovers that he was really an eternal spirit merely observing his actions and decisions made within the temporal timeline (your #2) – combined with the film made of “Jason and the Argonauts” - the scenes where the gods are watching the actions of mortals – perhaps you and I are eternal spirits, at this moment, watching ourselves sit in front of computers, and watching every decision "we" (our temporal souls) ever make throughout all our lives.

In #6 you say God must have “foreseen” an action of yours. Incorrect. Seen and foreseen are two different things. If God exists outside our timeline (as you postulate), then He sees actions; He doesn’t foresee actions. If He exists outside of time then “foresee” is a meaningless verb; He simply sees. He sees what He sees, or focuses on, before, during and after they occur in our timeline. (But we don’t know the mind of God well enough to know what he actually focuses on, or does.)

Nos. 7 and 8 are faulty simply because creating the universe and creating a timeline do not equal creating a “script”. In the same way, creating the conditions for a play to take place (creating a venue and a stage and scenery and establishing beginning and end times) do not cause the plot and dialouge of a play to be written.

The ironic thing about your post is determinism – if there is no creator God, and everything’s one big fluke, then everything is one big chain of cause-effect-cause-effect, ad infinitum. Ironically, only if you do away with an intelligent Creator do you get a scripted universe. Simply put, free will is only possible in conjunction with theism.

 

[Grega]

A problem with your #3, based on your 2nd premise - Did you really ever not exist? You are part of a flowing series of matter and energy, brought about by a particular combination of parental sperm and egg, but can you definitely say you were not contained from the beginning of #1 (*)?

It’s something to consider. I think of two things: the ending of Lewis’ “The Great Divorce”, where at the end of all time, a human discovers that he was really an eternal spirit merely observing his actions and decisions made within the temporal timeline (your #2) – combined with the film made of “Jason and the Argonauts” - the scenes where the gods are watching the actions of mortals – perhaps you and I are eternal spirits, at this moment, watching ourselves sit in front of computers, and watching every decision "we" (our temporal souls) ever make throughout all our lives.

In #6 you say God must have “foreseen” an action of yours. Incorrect. Seen and foreseen are two different things. If God exists outside our timeline (as you postulate), then He sees actions; He doesn’t foresee actions. If He exists outside of time then “foresee” is a meaningless verb; He simply sees. He sees what He sees, or focuses on, before, during and after they occur in our timeline. (But we don’t know the mind of God well enough to know what he actually focuses on, or does.)

Nos. 7 and 8 are faulty simply because creating the universe and creating a timeline do not equal creating a “script”. In the same way, creating the conditions for a play to take place (creating a venue and a stage and scenery and establishing beginning and end times) do not cause the plot and dialouge of a play to be written.

The ironic thing about your post is determinism – if there is no creator God, and everything’s one big fluke, then everything is one big chain of cause-effect-cause-effect, ad infinitum. Ironically, only if you do away with an intelligent Creator do you get a scripted universe. Simply put, free will is only possible in conjunction with theism.

A problem with your #3, based on your 2nd premise - Did you really ever not exist? You are part of a flowing series of matter and energy, brought about by a particular combination of parental sperm and egg, but can you definitely say you were not contained from the beginning of #1 (*)?
Thankyou for that...I have made more precise my premise [**]

In #6 you say God must have “foreseen” an action of yours. Incorrect. Seen and foreseen are two different things. If God exists outside our timeline (as you postulate), then He sees actions; He doesn’t foresee actions. If He exists outside of time then “foresee” is a meaningless verb; He simply sees. He sees what He sees, or focuses on, before, during and after they occur in our timeline. (But we don’t know the mind of God well enough to know what he actually focuses on, or does.)
Noted...I say this is a semantics issue and have adjusted #6 such that foreseen reads as seen.

Nos. 7 and 8 are faulty simply because creating the universe and creating a timeline do not equal creating a “script”. In the same way, creating the conditions for a play to take place (creating a venue and a stage and scenery and establishing beginning and end times) do not cause the plot and dialouge of a play to be written.
Thankyou again...I have slightly adjusted the way in which I introduce and use the word script in #7 and #8

I would welcome from you further responses

The ironic thing about your post is determinism – if there is no creator God, and everything’s one big fluke, then everything is one big chain of cause-effect-cause-effect, ad infinitum. Ironically, only if you do away with an intelligent Creator do you get a scripted universe. Simply put, free will is only possible in conjunction with theism.
Hmm..I don't see how introducing or not introducing a god changes the dynamics in the way we respond to events such that in one case we have free-will and the other we don't...furthermore theism need not necessarily imply that your god is omniscient. In fact I say that I don't know if a god exists...one might, but I am confident to say that the general understanding of such an entity if it exists is wrong

 

[Grega]

Dear Grega. Every time you say "your god," why the distinction? Do you not believe that you were made ( in God`s image?) as we all are? I cannot help wonder, How were you made? I ask this humbly and kindly, Grega? Omniscience does belong to God, and free will is ours, God-given and precious. and I do admit that I do not understand your X questions. Omniscience and free will is straightforward, God is not only All-powerful, He is also All-knowing. And to think that we have free will to do whatever we like, is quite mindbogling. However, God`s Holy Law stands forever, and God`s Commandments do too. Every time we follow God`s loving advice to us, we will be rewarded, and every time we ignore, or even disregard God`s loving advice to us, we will pay the consequences. What could be fairer than that? May I also point out, Jesus told us, (while on Earth) " Unless ye believe as children do, ye will not enter God`s Kingdom." And being Christians, we look forward to following Christ back to our home with God. This may not answer your Xs, Grega, but it answers God`s Omniscience And freewill. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

Dear Grega. Every time you say "your god," why the distinction? Do you not believe that you were made ( in God`s image?) as we all are? I cannot help wonder, How were you made? I ask this humbly and kindly, Grega?
I say "your god" to distance myself from the notions of a god I could conceive to be feasible and the notion of a god you currently hold to be true.

Omniscience does belong to God, and free will is ours, God-given and precious. and I do admit that I do not understand your X questions.
There are no "X questions", my X's are merely placeholders for actions that I could perform where I want to maintain generality, and remain reasonably concise...I made an apology in my OP because I realise that to those untrained in this form of terminology it can be quite heavy reading...I just ask that you read it again and where ever you see X with a number below it, convince yourself that this just denotes some arbitrary action I perform and that it is different or occurs at a different time to an X with a different number below it.

Omniscience and free will is straightforward,
I say that them both being true is a contradiction

God is not only All-powerful, He is also All-knowing. And to think that we have free will to do whatever we like, is quite mindbogling. However, God`s Holy Law stands forever, and God`s Commandments do too. Every time we follow God`s loving advice to us, we will be rewarded, and every time we ignore, or even disregard God`s loving advice to us, we will pay the consequences. What could be fairer than that? May I also point out, Jesus told us, (while on Earth) " Unless ye believe as children do, ye will not enter God`s Kingdom." And being Christians, we look forward to following Christ back to our home with God. This may not answer your Xs, Grega, but it answers God`s Omniscience And freewill. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ
Sorry Emmy but I say it doesn't...omniscience is a strong statement with profound implications...I respectfully say that you have not considered this statement with enough rigour to see the problems implied by it.

 

[Chesterton]

Thankyou for that...I have made more precise my premise [**]

It’s a little hard when you edit the OP, because I don’t recall exactly what the OP said – I think in #3 you added “physical entity”. Unless there is something very special about you , you’re the same physical entity that all humans are, with the same capabilities. I’m not sure how that could make a difference, because from the view of God, you have the same potential for the same decisions and actions we all have.

Noted...I say this is a semantics issue and have adjusted #6 such that foreseen reads as seen.

But there’s really no change. You changed “foreseen” to the past tense verb phrase “have been seen”. That’s the same as “foreseen”. The Christian view is that, because God is outside of time, any action of yours, at any time of your life “is seen” by God. Not “was seen” or “will be seen”, but always “is seen”.

Thankyou again...I have slightly adjusted the way in which I introduce and use the word script in #7 and #8

I would welcome from you further responses

Hmm..I don't see how introducing or not introducing a god changes the dynamics in the way we respond to events such that in one case we have free-will and the other we don't...furthermore theism need not necessarily imply that your god is omniscient. In fact I say that I don't know if a god exists...one might, but I am confident to say that the general understanding of such an entity if it exists is wrong

Again, I don’t know exactly what you changed from the OP, but the word “script” implies direction; actors must do what the script implies. If actors are human minds, then only the atheistic view makes a Shakespeare of physics and chemistry. If human minds are made of atoms, and atoms do their own thing, then atoms (or quarks, or strings, or whatever comprises them) are the playwrights of the cosmos.

I agree that the idea of omniscience which you’re postulating might be more thorough than the Bible provides. Are you familiar with the astrophysics theory of inflation? The nanoseconds after the Big Bang, where the speed of light is not the speed of light, and where the laws of nature do not yet exist, but are being formed? Perhaps for a split second God was not omniscient, perhaps the history of planet Earth played itself out in that “time”. This would not contradict orthodox Christian thought.

 

[Refurbished]

Respectfully, I think the unwritten premise that you could even begin to comprehend it is where your flaw begins. How can we, as limited creatures bound by time even begin to understand the infinite and omniscient God who exists outside of time?

Also, as a counter argument one could claim that just because God knows the options that you have and what you will do does not eliminate freewill. If God has foreknowledge that you will play the computer tomorrow as opposed to do your study, then you freely choose to do this event based on your own freewill, not out of obligation or lack of choice. Even though God knows our choices before we make them, we still have freewill to engage in them. You are not obliged to play do 'x' (play the computer) any more than you are to do 'y' (study). If you change your mind, then God has already seen this and you would still have the freewill to choose.

To be completely honest, I don't understand God or how He works and interacts with His creation and I don't think that I ever will, and that's okay for me. From my understanding of Scripture we have the freewill given by God to live our lives the way that we want to and to make our own decisions about Christ and what to do with Him. God may cause some events to happen but we still have the freewill choice to decide how to respond to them - not a day goes by when we don't face the same test as Adam: Choose to go God's way or our way.

Perhaps a more advanced question would be regarding God's sovereignty and freewill as omniscience doesn't preclude freewill.

 

[Grega]

It’s a little hard when you edit the OP, because I don’t recall exactly what the OP said – I think in #3 you added “physical entity”. Unless there is something very special about you , you’re the same physical entity that all humans are, with the same capabilities. I’m not sure how that could make a difference, because from the view of God, you have the same potential for the same decisions and actions we all have.



But there’s really no change. You changed “foreseen” to the past tense verb phrase “have been seen”. That’s the same as “foreseen”. The Christian view is that, because God is outside of time, any action of yours, at any time of your life “is seen” by God. Not “was seen” or “will be seen”, but always “is seen”.



Again, I don’t know exactly what you changed from the OP, but the word “script” implies direction; actors must do what the script implies. If actors are human minds, then only the atheistic view makes a Shakespeare of physics and chemistry. If human minds are made of atoms, and atoms do their own thing, then atoms (or quarks, or strings, or whatever comprises them) are the playwrights of the cosmos.

I agree that the idea of omniscience which you’re postulating might be more thorough than the Bible provides. Are you familiar with the astrophysics theory of inflation? The nanoseconds after the Big Bang, where the speed of light is not the speed of light, and where the laws of nature do not yet exist, but are being formed? Perhaps for a split second God was not omniscient, perhaps the history of planet Earth played itself out in that “time”. This would not contradict orthodox Christian thought.

It’s a little hard when you edit the OP, because I don’t recall exactly what the OP said – I think in #3 you added “physical entity”. Unless there is something very special about you , you’re the same physical entity that all humans are, with the same capabilities. I’m not sure how that could make a difference, because from the view of God, you have the same potential for the same decisions and actions we all have.
Your response which prompted my change seemed to suggest that I have always existed, just not always as a physical entity...ie I could have been some ethereal entity/essence that was always around in some dimension, so I tightened up 3 to be specific about what sort of existence is of interest to my argument

But there’s really no change. You changed “foreseen” to the past tense verb phrase “have been seen”. That’s the same as “foreseen”. The Christian view is that, because God is outside of time, any action of yours, at any time of your life “is seen” by God. Not “was seen” or “will be seen”, but always “is seen”.
Thanks again...I have removed the implication of a past tense in #6

Again, I don’t know exactly what you changed from the OP, but the word “script” implies direction; actors must do what the script implies. If actors are human minds, then only the atheistic view makes a Shakespeare of physics and chemistry. If human minds are made of atoms, and atoms do their own thing, then atoms (or quarks, or strings, or whatever comprises them) are the playwrights of the cosmos.
Hmm...if script is uncomfortable for you feel free to substitute any 'placeholder' word you feel convenient to succinctly express "fixed sequence of actions to be performed"...it seems you are suggesting that in the atheistic view that control over our own thoughts and external manifestation of such thoughts through our actions is not dynamic, I would say that though I don't outright reject such a notion I would ask for your justification that introducing a god actually changes things...I would also ask that the justification is rigourous

I agree that the idea of omniscience which you’re postulating might be more thorough than the Bible provides. Are you familiar with the astrophysics theory of inflation? The nanoseconds after the Big Bang, where the speed of light is not the speed of light, and where the laws of nature do not yet exist, but are being formed? Perhaps for a split second God was not omniscient, perhaps the history of planet Earth played itself out in that “time”. This would not contradict orthodox Christian thought.
Hmm...from this I infer that your god's omniscience is dependent upon the 'objects' he creates (in this case the universe)...I say that this seems to be a very shaky proposition that few will agree with you on...but feel free to elaborate

 

[Grega]

Respectfully, I think the unwritten premise that you could even begin to comprehend it is where your flaw begins. How can we, as limited creatures bound by time even begin to understand the infinite and omniscient God who exists outside of time?

Also, as a counter argument one could claim that just because God knows the options that you have and what you will do does not eliminate freewill. If God has foreknowledge that you will play the computer tomorrow as opposed to do your study, then you freely choose to do this event based on your own freewill, not out of obligation or lack of choice. Even though God knows our choices before we make them, we still have freewill to engage in them. You are not obliged to play do 'x' (play the computer) any more than you are to do 'y' (study). If you change your mind, then God has already seen this and you would still have the freewill to choose.

To be completely honest, I don't understand God or how He works and interacts with His creation and I don't think that I ever will, and that's okay for me. From my understanding of Scripture we have the freewill given by God to live our lives the way that we want to and to make our own decisions about Christ and what to do with Him. God may cause some events to happen but we still have the freewill choice to decide how to respond to them - not a day goes by when we don't face the same test as Adam: Choose to go God's way or our way.

Perhaps a more advanced question would be regarding God's sovereignty and freewill as omniscience doesn't preclude freewill.

Respectfully, I think the unwritten premise that you could even begin to comprehend it is where your flaw begins. How can we, as limited creatures bound by time even begin to understand the infinite and omniscient God who exists outside of time?
Firstly that premise of yours was not required in my argument, the more important premise is that your god is not contradictory, and so I need only construct a series of implications I can talk about and if a contradiction arises then we have a problem...If your belief is that your god can be contradictory then our conversations will be fruitless

Also, as a counter argument one could claim that just because God knows the options that you have and what you will do does not eliminate freewill. If God has foreknowledge that you will play the computer tomorrow as opposed to do your study, then you freely choose to do this event based on your own freewill, not out of obligation or lack of choice. Even though God knows our choices before we make them, we still have freewill to engage in them. You are not obliged to play do 'x' (play the computer) any more than you are to do 'y' (study). If you change your mind, then God has already seen this and you would still have the freewill to choose.
Please reread the OP and point out specifically where either a premise is wrong or a conclusion doesn't follow, and why you think this is so...if your god sees me do X, then at the point of my creation I must eventually do X...it is a contradiction for your god to see me do X and I instead do Y...the important point here is that god sees me do X outside of our timeline...me doing X is guaranteed

 

[Radagast]

I suggest you start by reading this summary of historical responses (I agree with Boethius by the way), and also explain what you mean by "free will" and how you reconcile it with determinism by the laws of physics.

 

[Grega]

I suggest you start by reading this summary of historical responses (I agree with Boethius by the way), and also explain what you mean by "free will" and how you reconcile it with determinism by the laws of physics.

Firstly thankyou for the link...most interesting
I have tried to be careful that my premises did not imply that god "believed T at a specific point in time" for I anticipated that there would be a response pointing out such a fallacy.
I would be grateful if you would be so kind to analyse my OP and demonstrate where I have commited the above...I say that Boethius's solution doesn't resolve the problem at all...If your god sees me do X and in his timeless state simultaneously sees all other actions I perform I am still bound to do X, and all actions that lead to X. Me not knowing that I will do X or not is irrelevant...a sequence of thought processes and circumstances must occur such that the action I choose is indeed X...otherwise your god sees me do Y =/= X...a contradiction since it is given he sees me do X

With respect to temporal considerations I say that regardless of how we 'percieve' the passage of time, such perception is moot when you consider a timeless state where your god supposedly resides...necessity of the past is meaningless from your god's p.o.v because past, present, and future imply time, but we assume your god exist outside of time.
I say that it was/is my intention to formulate my argument such that what your god sees is not contingent upon time. What is important is that your god timelessly seeing that I do X forces that I do X. It is irrelevant that I know or know not which actions I will perform because ultimately I will still perform X; furthermore this is true indepently of my perception of time and the order of events and causes; ie: the direction of time.

By freewill I mean that my choices are truly dynamic, and all factors considered I am able to choose X or ¬X independently of any external influences other than my own conscious thoughts that 'I' am free to choose between...I am willing to accept that I may not actually have freewill (ie: I have pseudo free-will), my conviction on this point will be bolstered if you can sufficiently demonstrate that the laws of physics necessarily determine my actions (and I suppose then you might suggest you must show that these physical laws are absolutely true beyond all suggestions that they may be augmented or falsified in the future, whereby you say that you cannot provide this demonstration), but this does not un-entangle you from the lack of freewill implied by omniscience

 

[Radagast]

By freewill I mean that my choices are truly dynamic, and all factors considered I am able to choose X or ¬X independently of any external influences other than my own conscious thoughts...

On that definition, I don't think anyone has free will. I can't choose to go to the moon, for example: external influences prevent me.

But I see no point to debating this until you've read more in the area, and can express yourself with greater clarity.

 

[Grega]

On that definition, I don't think anyone has free will. I can't choose to go to the moon, for example: external influences prevent me.

But I see no point to debating this until you've read more in the area, and can express yourself with greater clarity.

On that definition, I don't think anyone has free will. I can't choose to go to the moon, for example: external influences prevent me.
If you have free-will you can choose that you 'want' or don't 'want' to go to the moon independently of any external influences, whereby in my previous response, X is the decision that "going to the moon is preferable to not going to the moon" and ¬X the obvious negation of that statement...whether you choose to go to moon or not is contingent upon whether you actually have the means of going to the moon given that you 'want' to go to the moon....but if the conditions in place allow your choice of going or not going to be viable, then again your choice (if you have freewill) should not be determined by even the mechanical construct of your brain and its workings. Of course there are many subtleties behind even this statement (what if I had been drugged? and the effect such drugs have on my brain is that I am susceptible to make choices I wouldn't make in its absense) and it is more for the sake of argument (& being tactful towards my fellow forum respondents) that I even accept the proposition of actual free-will to be a feasible concept.

But please feel free to give me what you would say is a stronger definition of free-will and I promise you that I shall return my evaluation of it in at least the same level of detail that you have evaluated mine.
Note that I am not concerned that it may be true that I don't have actual free-will. I am content to exist under the illusion of such.

But I see no point to debating this until you've read more in the area, and can express yourself with greater clarity.
Ah yes...argumentum ad 'you wouldn't understandum'! how flattering!
It seems you have merely chosen what you see as the solution of greatest obfuscation and contrived subtlety with respect to this dilemma in order that you may perhaps fend off 'the majority of people' (like me) with handwaving, and directions to become as learned as yourself. Given that you must not have your 'ivory tower' theistic position comprimised I do not find this at all surprising.

But please...take pity on a lowly pleb such as myself and grant me some small demonstration of your enlightenment

 

[Chesterton]

Your response which prompted my change seemed to suggest that I have always existed, just not always as a physical entity...ie I could have been some ethereal entity/essence that was always around in some dimension, so I tightened up 3 to be specific about what sort of existence is of interest to my argument

Okay I think I understand, but, we humans only have experience of humans as the physical entities we are now, so any other mode of existence could be known to God, but not by us, so I don’t see how we could even discuss it without wild speculation.

Thanks again...I have removed the implication of a past tense in #6

I think that makes a difference, don’t you? If I own the DVD of “Star Wars” I can always see it. I’ve seen it in the past, I can see it right now, and I can see it in the future. None of those viewings means that I determined what the Luke Skywalker character does. I'm omniscient as regards each character, each "will", in the film; I know what each one did, what they are doing, and what they will do, but I didn't cause them to do it.

Hmm...if script is uncomfortable for you feel free to substitute any 'placeholder' word you feel convenient to succinctly express "fixed sequence of actions to be performed"...it seems you are suggesting that in the atheistic view that control over our own thoughts and external manifestation of such thoughts through our actions is not dynamic, I would say that though I don't outright reject such a notion I would ask for your justification that introducing a god actually changes things...I would also ask that the justification is rigourous

It’s not being uncomfortable with “scripted” - you could substitute “scripted”, “fixed”, “directed”, “determined” or any other words. I just don’t see how an omniscient God requires anything like that. On the other had, in a godless, purely material universe, you can get nothing but a fixed sequence of events. Free will can’t arise from the “mechanical march of atoms”.

That's probably not rigourous enough for you, because it doesn't prove anything, but consider that free wills could arise if a God creates them to be free. I think it’s as simple as this: I don’t know what I’ll have for dinner tomorrow, but God may know. I can choose to have soup, or a salad, or do without dinner, and God may know which I’ll choose, but the fact that He knows in no way determines or even influences which I will choose.

Hmm...from this I infer that your god's omniscience is dependent upon the 'objects' he creates (in this case the universe)...I say that this seems to be a very shaky proposition that few will agree with you on...but feel free to elaborate

It’s a Christian belief that God does not control human wills. Therefore the very act of creating things which He wouldn’t control must necessarily imply that He was not omniscient in regard to the future results of these wills. Now whether this hypothetical lapse of omniscience lasted a nanosecond, or the entire billions of years the universe will last doesn’t matter, because of course this “time” idea applies to us, not Him. What we can’t help but perceive as a sequence of events, He may see as an event; what we see as a narrative, He sees as a single word.

It may seem as if I’m impugning God’s power in suggesting He is or was not at all times fully omniscient, but there is a historical precedent for that type of thing - we know there was a time when He willingly sacrificed some of His power and glory for the sake of love (on the cross).

 

[Grega]

Okay I think I understand, but, we humans only have experience of humans as the physical entities we are now, so any other mode of existence could be known to God, but not by us, so I don’t see how we could even discuss it without wild speculation.
But such states of existence are merely something to be curious about...they are not important to the actual problem I outline in my OP



I think that makes a difference, don’t you? If I own the DVD of “Star Wars” I can always see it. I’ve seen it in the past, I can see it right now, and I can see it in the future. None of those viewings means that I determined what the Luke Skywalker character does. I'm omniscient as regards each character, each "will", in the film; I know what each one did, what they are doing, and what they will do, but I didn't cause them to do it.



It’s not being uncomfortable with “scripted” - you could substitute “scripted”, “fixed”, “directed”, “determined” or any other words. I just don’t see how an omniscient God requires anything like that. On the other had, in a godless, purely material universe, you can get nothing but a fixed sequence of events. Free will can’t arise from the “mechanical march of atoms”.

That's probably not rigourous enough for you, because it doesn't prove anything, but consider that free wills could arise if a God creates them to be free. I think it’s as simple as this: I don’t know what I’ll have for dinner tomorrow, but God may know. I can choose to have soup, or a salad, or do without dinner, and God may know which I’ll choose, but the fact that He knows in no way determines or even influences which I will choose.



It’s a Christian belief that God does not control human wills. Therefore the very act of creating things which He wouldn’t control must necessarily imply that He was not omniscient in regard to the future results of these wills. Now whether this hypothetical lapse of omniscience lasted a nanosecond, or the entire billions of years the universe will last doesn’t matter, because of course this “time” idea applies to us, not Him. What we can’t help but perceive as a sequence of events, He may see as an event; what we see as a narrative, He sees as a single word.

It may seem as if I’m impugning God’s power in suggesting He is or was not at all times fully omniscient, but there is a historical precedent for that type of thing - we know there was a time when He willingly sacrificed some of His power and glory for the sake of love (on the cross).

Okay I think I understand, but, we humans only have experience of humans as the physical entities we are now, so any other mode of existence could be known to God, but not by us, so I don’t see how we could even discuss it without wild speculation.
But such states of existence are merely something to be curious about...they are not important to the actual problem I outline in my OP, hence I choose not to discuss or include them.

I think that makes a difference, don’t you? If I own the DVD of “Star Wars” I can always see it. I’ve seen it in the past, I can see it right now, and I can see it in the future. None of those viewings means that I determined what the Luke Skywalker character does. I'm omniscient as regards each character, each "will", in the film; I know what each one did, what they are doing, and what they will do, but I didn't cause them to do it.
But you are neither creator of the universe/timeline nor director of Starwars (who did cause them to do it in this case)

It’s not being uncomfortable with “scripted” - you could substitute “scripted”, “fixed”, “directed”, “determined” or any other words. I just don’t see how an omniscient God requires anything like that.
Suppose your god sees me do some sequence of actions...can your god see me doing these actions whilst I do something different to these actions? I say this cannot be so, and from our timeline I must at the point of my creation do precisely what your god sees me do.

Importantly, when your god created the universe, a timeline was created with it. This timeline is invariant

On the other had, in a godless, purely material universe, you can get nothing but a fixed sequence of events. Free will can’t arise from the “mechanical march of atoms”.

That's probably not rigourous enough for you, because it doesn't prove anything, but consider that free wills could arise if a God creates them to be free. I think it’s as simple as this: I don’t know what I’ll have for dinner tomorrow, but God may know. I can choose to have soup, or a salad, or do without dinner, and God may know which I’ll choose, but the fact that He knows in no way determines or even influences which I will choose.
This is just handwaving...you say that when there exists your god, we have freewill by little more than decree

Your god's knowledge must determine what you choose, otherwise you could choose to do something other than what he sees!

It’s a Christian belief that God does not control human wills. Therefore the very act of creating things which He wouldn’t control must necessarily imply that He was not omniscient in regard to the future results of these wills. Now whether this hypothetical lapse of omniscience lasted a nanosecond, or the entire billions of years the universe will last doesn’t matter, because of course this “time” idea applies to us, not Him. What we can’t help but perceive as a sequence of events, He may see as an event; what we see as a narrative, He sees as a single word
the bolded statement is actually meaningless for a timeless entity!...if he is timeless then he is either always omniscient or never omniscient.

What does it mean to say that sometimes he can be omniscient whilst at others he can be not omniscient given that he's timeless?

It may seem as if I’m impugning God’s power in suggesting He is or was not at all times fully omniscient, but there is a historical precedent for that type of thing - we know there was a time when He willingly sacrificed some of His power and glory for the sake of love (on the cross)
If your god is omniscient and timeless then this statement is a contradiction...there can never be a time when he sacrificed his power by the assumed fact that he is timeless in the first place!

 

[synger]

I think that the Scriptures are fairly clear that God is omniscient and has a plan for us. And that we can choose to reject his will for us. The two are indeed contradictory, if we were speaking of a human. But God, by definition, is not, and has attributes we cannot explain or understand (though we can certainly try).

For all I know, God is like the Kwisatz Haderach from Herbert's "Dune" books, and can see all possible futures and pasts. Unlike him, God can see the best plan for each person. I don't know. The Bible, which tells us a great deal about God's attributes, does not go into the "how" aspects of this.

I also think of God as outside of the time stream. It's a human rationalization, but how else does one understand the many times the Bible explains God's relationship to time as being intimately connected to both what we call the past and what we call the future? What God sees when he looks at my timeline could be the "past" to him, even though I have not done it yet. Again, I have no idea.

But the focus for me is not how God knows this stuff, but rather the hope I have because he knows it. God HAS a plan... a reason for my specific existence... just as he ahs a plan for yours. I can veer from that path; I can even deny him completely. But that doesn't change the fact that he has a plan, and that he sees both my past and my future (or many futures). And that wherever I am, he is with me and loves me.

It's kinda like when people ask me when I was saved. I answer, "Oh, about two thousand years ago on a cross in Jerusalem". Time isn't the point. God's love is. The whole Bible is a story of God reconciling us to himself... the rest is interesting, but not central.

 

[Chesterton]

But you are neither creator of the universe/timeline nor director of Starwars (who did cause them to do it in this case)

Right, but if the creator of Star Wars were able to give his characters free wills... A human cannot create a will, or even a being to possess a will. But if a God could create a free will at a point in time, and let it go on its own from there, the effect could be the same as watching a movie, or maybe like a panoramic mural.

Suppose your god sees me do some sequence of actions...can your god see me doing these actions whilst I do something different to these actions? I say this cannot be so, and from our timeline I must at the point of my creation do precisely what your god sees me do.

I don’t understand - it sounds like you’re saying "can I do two different things at once?" Of course not. But why does His seeing you do something mean that you weren’t free to do otherwise?

Importantly, when your god created the universe, a timeline was created with it. This timeline is invariant

Not if He intentionally allowed for events to be outside the realm of His control. Or you could say nothing is outside His control, but He simply does not exercise control.

This is just handwaving...you say that when there exists your god, we have freewill by little more than decree

Yes, right, we have free will by extraordinary divine decree.

Your god's knowledge must determine what you choose,...

Just reverse that, and we have the answer – What I choose must determine my God’s knowledge.

...otherwise you could choose to do something other than what he sees!

I could choose to do something other, but then that other is what He sees. Before I decide upon an action, there may be an infinite number of different choices available to me, but after I've acted, there is only one action - the action I took. And that's what God sees. He sees it a billion years before I acted, and a billion years after; it just happens to occupy one point on my timeline; that doesn't mean I wasn't free to make it; it doesn't mean I couldn't have done a different action.

the bolded statement is actually meaningless for a timeless entity!...if he is timeless then he is either always omniscient or never omniscient.

What does it mean to say that sometimes he can be omniscient whilst at others he can be not omniscient given that he's timeless?

When you put it that way, yes, that is extremely difficult to understand. We can’t explain it, but remember that He is timeless, and the things He created (the universe and everything in it) are not. So if He willed it to be so, there could possibly be a separation of the two natures - His omniscient, timeless nature, and the time-sequence-dependent nature of the cosmos.

But I don’t know. Really it only takes a little humility to admit that things could certainly be possible, but which our human minds can’t logic out. A few generations ago no one could conceive of a black hole which seemed at first to contradict or suspend known physical laws. So it’s not at all a cop-out to say “With God all things are possible”. It seems arrogant, short-sighted and “human-centric” to think that just because right now we can’t understand how something is possible, means that it’s impossible. I think any good science fiction author would say the same.

Also, I’d refer back to “synger’s” good answer above.

If your god is omniscient and timeless then this statement is a contradiction...there can never be a time when he sacrificed his power by the assumed fact that he is timeless in the first place!

Christians believe that at a certain point in the human timeline, 2,000 years ago, God willingly entered the timeline.

 

[solarwave]

7) Therefore I must behave in precisely the way your god saw me behave before I was created ie: there exists a fixed sequence of actions I must perform such that I eventually perform X[sub]0[/sub], and I define this to be a script. (from 3,4,6)
8) Your god created the universe, and our timeline therefore your god created the script defined in 7 (from 1,2,7)
9) I have no real free will since all my actions were determined beforehand by your god (from 7, 8)

Here is where I have the problem. I think there are two ways of looking at this. Ether you are saying 1) God knew what we were going to do before we did it, so we didn't have a choice in the matter. or 2) God created a universe in which everything is determined by physical laws, therefore there is only one way events could ever go, regardless of Gods omniscience. To me (2) is a better arguement then (1).

Problems with (1): ''Before you were created God knew everything that you would ever do, so you could never do anything different from this.'' The first problem with this, I think, is the word before. God is above and beyond time and so in a way for God there is no before for Him. When He knows that you will do something before you do it, it is not because He has foreknowledge, it is because He is there as you do it and in the past at the same time. He can look down from beyond time and see action X happening, and because He is beyond time He knows this is every other time. My point is that it is no different from you seeing someone doing X. If you go into the future in a time machine, change nothing but see action X, then go back in time. Did you make action X happen? No, you just saw the free act of that person, and that person is not now forced to do that action because you know it WILL happen, but he will choose it freely regardless of your knowing. I think this is true of God also. You don't act because God knows, He knows because you act. I think that is the main point.

Problems with (2): I don't believe we are predetermined by the laws of physics and the conditions at the start of the world. I believe we can really choose to do one thing rather than another and it isn't just the consequence particles hitting other particles. Maybe this is down to the 'soul' giving consciousness outside of the physical world, but I just believe this. I find some 'Near-Death Experiences' to be good evidence for consciousness beyond the body.

If it ws (2) you ment then fair enough, but I don't think that there is a good reason to believe (1).