The problem of omniscience

[JohnClay]

I suggest you watch Groundhog Day again. The movie did not put any emphasis on that. Where the emphasis was put was on showing the different types of reactions Phil would get by behaving differently. Just look at all the Ned Ryerson scenes here.

What about when he is at the bar with Rita and afterwards? He repeats a series of behaviours, again and again, just changing the latest one. Rita acts exactly the same again and again based on what he is repeating.

But you are right that the movie also involves him trying different things with Ned.

 

[Kim7229]

What about when he is at the bar with Rita and afterwards? He repeats a series of behaviours, again and again, just changing the latest one. Rita acts exactly the same again and again based on what he is repeating.

But you are right that the movie also involves him trying different things with Ned.

Precisely my point. He does something different with Rita each time and gets a different response. Either way, I think to use Groundhog Day as an analogy is somewhat of a red herring.

 

[Kim7229]

So, it sounds to me as if the insinuated and undeclared definition for "free will" in the OP is a permeating state, one that affects the individual on both internal and external levels and one where the individual can, by permeated freedom, make a choice between A or B, correct?

This is from the OP:

Christians also often make the claim that man has free will. Upon being asked for specifics, they’ll agree that free will entails the ability to freely make a choice and that up until the time an option is chosen, a different option could have been chosen.

 

[Kim7229]

When one gets to the point of having to invent beliefs in others in order to support their position, they've already lost.

Then neither of us have lost, as neither of us have invented beliefs.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Then neither of us have lost, as neither of us have invented beliefs.

Actually, you attributed a belief to me I did not express. Doing so demonstrates the futility of your argument.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is from the OP:

Christians also often make the claim that man has free will. Upon being asked for specifics, they’ll agree that free will entails the ability to freely make a choice and that up until the time an option is chosen, a different option could have been chosen.

ok. great. now what? Am I supposed to admit defeat or something? I would, if I actually thought these matters were as simple as the OP tries to make them out to be. And since it isn't your OP, you've got me wondering since you've obviously plagiarized this argument ....................................

 

[JohnClay]

Einstein believed in the "block universe" where everything from the past and future exists at once - and the future is inevitable and unable to be changed.

I think that is compatible with the God of the Bible.

In a block universe, the passing of time is just an illusion.

I think we can have a feeling of free will even if the choice of A or B can never be changed in the end.

When we make decisions there is a chain of reasoning. We may be given the choice of eating a hamburger or to step on a nail. It is possible that some people will choose to step on a nail and that shows that there is freedom. But in order for them to make that decision it would require them to value the idea of being free and this would outweigh the pain they expect to feel from stepping on the nail. If the circumstances were exactly the same, they'd choose the same thing every time whether it is eating a hamburger or stepping on a nail.

If the choice was not so obvious it would still be predetermined. The choice could be what to watch on TV. What you feel like at the time would lead to a specific choice. Even if you have no idea what you're going to choose, it would feel like a "free" choice but the physics and chemistry used in your choice would always operate in the same way giving the same choice based on the starting conditions.

So if you are going to choose A in the future, this would be a permanent part of the block universe and God would know this. The same is true for B. You don't know what you're going to choose (unless God told you). But if God told you you'd have to obey the prediction otherwise there would be a paradox. Unless God lied to you, then there would be no paradox.

 

[Chriliman]

Let's say if God knows that tomorrow you'll choose A, then X=A and if God knows that tomorrow you'll choose B, then X=B. Does X have a truth value right now? Just give me a yes or a no.

From God’s perspective it’s simultaneously as if I haven’t yet made the choice / am making the choice / have made the choice. God encompasses all time so based on that, the answer is yes, X has a truth value that I’m still relatively free to make since I don’t necessarily know the truth value yet and experience time linearly.

It’s similar to a parent knowing their child so well that they can predict what they’ll choose with 100% accuracy. You could even say the parent knows what the child will choose even before the child chooses it because they know the child so well. Does this then mean the child isn’t free to make its own choices?

 

[Radagast]

Einstein believed in the "block universe" where everything from the past and future exists at once - and the future is inevitable and unable to be changed.

I think that is compatible with the God of the Bible.

In a block universe, the passing of time is just an illusion.

I think we can have a feeling of free will even if the choice of A or B can never be changed in the end.

You can even have genuine free will - of the compatibilist kind. That is, you can genuinely want to make the choice that you did.