Why a true omniscient cannot coexist with true free will.

[sentipente]

However, quite a bit of what Christians believe is illogical.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is it not possible that free will exists inside of time but not outside of it (as opposed to not existing at all and simply appearing to exist in time) ?

No. If it exists, it exists. If it doesn't, it doesn't. Existance is not subject to location (or timeliness). It can be illusory 'in time', and nonexistance 'out of time', but ultimately it is nonexistant.

This only holds if "outside of time" is superior to or is above or is more real then being "inside" time. Which mode of being is the real one, being inside time or being outside it?

Being outside time, I would imagine.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Knowledge in general isn’t a causal relation, this includes foreknowledge. Deist actually answered this pretty well about 400 years ago. There is a big difference between predication and causation.

As I have posted several times, I am not arguing that foreknowledge influences reality. Rather, the possible forms of reality are limited to those that allow foreknowledge to exist.
The existance of life does not force the universe to be hospitable to it, but we can deduce the universes hospitality from the existance of life.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

However, quite a bit of what Christians believe is illogical.

To say the least...

 

[Nadiine]

To say the least...

I find that it works the other way around - I find that people who reject God are illogical

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I find that it works the other way around - I find that people who reject God are illogical

Care to elaborate?
And, um, you appear to have a cat on your head...

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I don't think you are discussion logic here. All the things you described are entirely logical. Logic enables us to move from a premise to a conclusion. How can it be illogical for the one who created water and surface tension to walk on it?

I'm sure an Atheist would be willing to give a reason.

I think Nadiine's post gave a reply that would be similar (or at least touched on a little) of what I may have given.

I noticed that you even mentioned a Creator.
I would say that draws more from a spiritual well than a worldly one.

 

[Gukkor]

No. If it exists, it exists. If it doesn't, it doesn't. Existance is not subject to location (or timeliness). It can be illusory 'in time', and nonexistance 'out of time', but ultimately it is nonexistant.

Why wouldn't it be? There are already certain rules and concepts that logically would only apply in an environment with time (causality, for instance).

 

[Nadiine]

I haven't read through this thread yet, and my following statements may show that lol - maybe someone else has already mentioned this too, I don't know, but....

As far as God co-existing with true free will, it's Christians who are "GIVING" God our free will - OF OUR OWN FREE WILL.
We WILL that God be worshipped, obeyed, and honored as God. We WILL that we didn't have a sin nature and want to be rid of it ultimately. We don't want sin to exist and continue (which is why we repent and seek not to continue in it).

So then, when it comes time to live eternally with God, He is honoring our free will as we chose Him and His righteousness over us, to liberate us [in His power] by judging and confining all evil to the Lake of Fire where it won't continue to work against [corrupt] what is good and true, and we will then be FREE to have our "free will" honored as God restores everything to the way He initially intended for it to be upon Creation.

So God CAN coexist with true free will; there are just consequences for our decisions within that will - eternal life or condemnation.
Honoring our choice of will as we made it here in this life - of our own volition.

Sorry again if this doesn't fit w/ the thread - I haven't read much here yet.

 

[MelissaShae]

I find that it works the other way around - I find that people who reject God are illogical

I agree totally. It is very odd and illogical to me as a Christian that someone would reject God and not follow him.

 

[chris777]

And my point is that I do not see how my 'parameters' are flawed.

I don't know of a way to demonstrate it to you as you seem to have already decided the outcome, or what would it take to demonstrate it for you?

I'm not quite sure how this follows, but I'll go with it.

Could you elaborate what you mean by 'exists outside of our world'? Are you referring to a being not on our spacetime continuum?

yes

Could you explain how an omniscient that 'exists outside of our world' solves the paradox?

how could something existing outside of our system cause somethig within it to not have free will,

I used it to show that knowledge regarding an event can alter the nature of the event itself. It was an analogy, nothing more.
If you think I have used it incorrectly, please, show me my flaw.

Thats why I asked how you were using it, the description given stated that in order to determin locattion of an electron the description states
"For example, for us to "see" an electron, a photon must first interact with it, and this interaction will change the path of that electron."
this is direct involvement in the phenomena being observed, so it would obviouslly have consequence from it, thats why I asked if this was th way you intended to use the term observer effect?

I'm sorry?

einsteins relativity.

I don't see you. To recap:

I said: An extention of my scenario is that we cannot deduce the existance of an omniscient simply by noting that we have free will (since it may just be an illusion).
You said: is this not philosophy though?
I said: Yes, I believe it is.
You said: and thats the flaw of quantum mechanics,

I do not see where quantum mechanics comes into it.

quantum mechanics becomes philosophy and is flawed because of it.

Mathematical language is used to paint a picture of absolute precision (as opposed to natural languages, say). If you could understand the language, it's quite a lovely picture.

I can see the picture I just dont understand that language for describing it.

 

[chaz345]

Being outside time, I would imagine.

Why?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why wouldn't it be? There are already certain rules and concepts that logically would only apply in an environment with time (causality, for instance).

Indded. But free will is not one of them.
Unless, of course, you can demonstrate otherwise.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

[snip]

Sorry again if this doesn't fit w/ the thread - I haven't read much here yet.

Yes, it would appear that you have missed the point of this thread. Might I suggest you read my OP? We haven't diverged too far from it, thankfully

Also, could you explain what you meant by, "I find that people who reject God are illogical"?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't know of a way to demonstrate it to you as you seem to have already decided the outcome, or what would it take to demonstrate it for you?

You could start by listing my parameters, and explaining why you think they are flawed.

how could something existing outside of our system cause somethig within it to not have free will,

If our system is open with respect to the 'something', then it could do so quite easily.
But for arguments sake, let us assume that the omniscient is not part of our spacetime continuum, and is still omniscient.
For this entity to exist, the universe (continuum and all) can only be of a certain set of forms. Specifically, the universe must be totally deterministic.
As I have said countless times on this thread, the omniscient does not 'cause' anything; it is simply sitting there, existing, minding it's own business.

Thats why I asked how you were using it, the description given stated that in order to determin locattion of an electron the description states
"For example, for us to "see" an electron, a photon must first interact with it, and this interaction will change the path of that electron."
this is direct involvement in the phenomena being observed, so it would obviouslly have consequence from it, thats why I asked if this was th way you intended to use the term observer effect?

No, this is not how I used it, and I am aware of the physical manifestations of the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle.
I was referring to the observer effect intrinstic to entanglement.

einsteins relativity.

Yes, that's what I thought. To recap:

Me: Free will is the ability by which a sentient entity can make unpredictable (though reasoned) choices.
You: its [einsteins [sic] relativity] to a certan degree,

I don't see where relativity comes into it.

quantum mechanics becomes philosophy and is flawed because of it.

How does quantum mechanics become philosophy?
Even if it does become philosophy, how does that make it in any way flawed?

I can see the picture I just dont understand that language for describing it.

We could discuss mathematical language in more depth via PM if you wish, but such a tutorial would drag us off-topic here.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why?

Because there are less constraints (specifically, there is no arrow of time). An entity in such a state has one less obstacle obscuring it's view of the 'real' reality.

 

[JonF]

As I have posted several times, I am not arguing that foreknowledge influences reality. Rather, the possible forms of reality are limited to those that allow foreknowledge to exist.

The existance of life does not force the universe to be hospitable to it, but we can deduce the universes hospitality from the existance of life.

Then your notion of free will is all jumbled. When you say “free will” what exactly do mean the will is free from? For your OP combined with this last post to make sense it can be nothing causal. It sounds like you are asking if the will is “free” from logical necessity; to this I would respond of course it isn’t.

Also your last post is a straw man. Foreknowledge doesn’t limit reality, reality limits foreknowledge. But, I’m a Calvinist, I fully admit and support the will isn’t entirely free.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Then your notion of free will is all jumbled. When you say “free will” what exactly do mean the will is free from? For your OP combined with this last post to make sense it can be nothing causal. It sounds like you are asking if the will is “free” from logical necessity; to this I would respond of course it isn’t.

I do not claim that 'free will' is 'will that is free', in the superficial sense of the phrase. Before, I defined it as: "Free will is the ability by which a sentient entity can make unpredictable (though reasoned) choices".
Personally, I have no stance as to whether it exists or not. I'm simply arguing against the coexistance of it and omniscience (something we seem to agree on).

 

[Teufelhund]

There is no such thing as an unpredictable reasonable choice, any more than there are random numbers.

 

[Nadiine]

I do not claim that 'free will' is 'will that is free', in the superficial sense of the phrase. Before, I defined it as: "Free will is the ability by which a sentient entity can make unpredictable (though reasoned) choices".
Personally, I have no stance as to whether it exists or not. I'm simply arguing against the coexistance of it and omniscience (something we seem to agree on).

Unpredictable by whom? Us? or God?

Just bcuz God may know what someone is going to do, doesn't remove their free will (choice to act)....
I personally think free will needs to properly be defined first (and possibly agreed upon) in order to seek an answer.