Why a true omniscient cannot coexist with true free will.

[Wiccan_Child]

Actually given that the universe is composed of a specific amount of matter and everything can really be reduced to mathematical interactions, it is entirely predictible, in fact nothing unpredictible ever happens we simply sufficient to compute, so if that means that your definition of free will cannot exist, then free will does not exist, it exits under other definitions but not yours so, an omniscient God can exist, be free will itself, under your definition cannot, whether or not God exists.

*pauses for breath*
OK, first of all, is that really a given? I mean, I myself believe it, but is it something we can assume?
Second, you have to be careful with your terminology: are you referring to an omniscient, a deity, or an omniscient deity?

 

[Teufelhund]

I think I labeled the diety, an omniscient diety. I used God in the more estoric sense here, as we're philosophical possiblities as opposed to religion.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think I labeled the diety, an omniscient diety. I used God in the more estoric sense here, as we're philosophical possiblities as opposed to religion.

OK, thanks.
My other question ("Is it really a given?") remains, and I anticipate it's response; it seems to be the crux of our disagreement.

 

[GenemZ]

Suppose I, an entity allegedly with free will, and God*, an entity allegedly omniscient, are in a room with two boxes, A and B. God asks me to pick one of the boxes.

God knows I will pick box A (in this scenario, at least). I don't know God knows this, nor have I made my decision (such that it may be).

• Can I pick box B?
  • If so, then God is not omniscient.
  • If not, then I do not have free will.

You would only not have freedom of will if God made you choose what you did.

Because he is God? He can be laze fare concerning our decisions when he wants to. That does not mean he does not know how we will choose.

Being not limited to time and space God sees tomorrow as yesterday. He knows what we will want to choose. But, he did not make us choose. If he did? No one would reject Christ.

This is why a true omniscient being cannot coexist with an entity with true free will.

God has given us freedom of will. He has placed man within a limited domain. Its only from within that domain itself, that God allows for freedom of choice.

We did not choose the limits of that domain. In that sense we do not have free will. To have free will that you speak of? Would mean God could not create true life. For only God has the type of free will you think is free will. He would not be able to create a life, and only remain alone if we all had free will you speak of.

God never promised free will. He promised freedom of the will within limits.

Deuteronomy 30:15-19 (New International Version)
"See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.



But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.




This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live."



​

God sets the boundaries and rules. Man is allowed to choose.



Your version of free will could have said....

God? Be gone! I choose not to choose for such a thing!
​

​

They could not do that. In that sense we do not have free will. We have been given freedom of the will.

And, God does not do such things so he can find out who we are. He does it so we can discover about ourselves what he already knows. Its we who needs to discover what we want to choose.

Free will? Freedom of will. Not to be confused.

God is the only free will.

We were created in his image.

We have a freedom of will.

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[Nadiine]

You would only not have freedom of will if God made you choose what you did.

Because he is God? He can be laze fare concerning our decisions when he wants to. That does not mean he does not know how we will choose.

Being not limited to time and space God sees tomorrow as yesterday. He knows what we will want to choose. But, he did not make us choose. If he did? No one would reject Christ.

God has given us freedom of will. He has placed man within a limited domain. Its only from within that domain itself, that God allows for freedom of choice.

We did not choose the limits of that domain. In that sense we do not have free will. To have free will that you speak of? Would mean God could not create true life. For only God has the type of free will you think is free will. He would not be able to create a life, and only remain alone if we all had free will you speak of.

God never promised free will. He promised freedom of the will within limits.

Deuteronomy 30:15-19 (New International Version)
"See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. ​

But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. ​

This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live." ​

God sets the boundaries and rules. Man is allowed to choose. ​

Your version of free will could have said.... ​

God? Be gone! I choose not to choose for such a thing! ​

They could not do that. In that sense we do not have free will. We have been given freedom of the will.

And, God does not do such things so he can find out who we are. He does it so we can discover about ourselves what he already knows. Its we who needs to discover what we want to choose.

Free will? Freedom of will. Not to be confused.

God is the only free will.

We were created in his image.

We have a freedom of will.

In Christ, GeneZ​

This is how I view it as well. The point I get from it all is this, THIS IS HOW LIFE IS AS WE KNOW IT'S SET UP - now deal with it and make your choices.

Imho, ANY way God sets things up, you're going to have people whining and complaining about what they don't like and what they don't get... or what they get too much or too little of.... blah blah blah.

THIS IS how it is, now we have to work with what we have before us. I went thru a long period of anger in my teens that I was even born. I didn't ASK to be born and I wished I never was - I had no choice. Everything sucked - I wanted to live as a wild child, and my parents were Baptist Christians -- I lived in hell.
And I DID believe God existed - I would never mock God, I'd never deny God... I just wanted to live my own way & have my fun. So "fun" to me was a heavy burden becuz I lived in guilt of my lifestyle knowing that it wasn't right. THAT made me wish I wasn't born bcuz I even tho I could live my way (as I snuck around to accomplish my own will), I knew I'd have to answer to God for it.

Anyways, we have "limited" free will - in that, we cannot change the laws of the universe we're subjected to or placed under - but we can make life choices within that structure.

The fact that God knows what we'll do from start to finish doesn't negate the fact that we still use our free will - He just knows what it will be and allows us do it (and has most likely already made a provision for that in His plan at times).
If that's not the case, then ALL people would believe the same things and come to agreement w/ and acceptance of salvation from this God.

One thing I keep in mind is this, a believer of God GIVES GOD their free will and life to use them as a vessel for His kingdom.
God can and might cause them to do something - or usurp their will at some point... but that permission was already given.

Ultimately, I think our 'free will' has its limitations. We are "free" in many senses, yet not capable of doing everything we'd like or making things the way we'd want them to be (ie. no aging, no death, no suffering, no pain, etc.) -
(but that goes back to original sin and what sin brings naturally - a whole other thread) lol

Anyhoo, just thinking "out loud".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You would only not have freedom of will if God made you choose what you did.

I disagree. There are other situations which would negate our free will.

Because he is God? He can be laze fare concerning our decisions when he wants to. That does not mean he does not know how we will choose.

Perhaps, but it is the foreknowledge that interests me.

Being not limited to time and space God sees tomorrow as yesterday. He knows what we will want to choose. But, he did not make us choose. If he did? No one would reject Christ.

I fail to see where Jesus comes into all this.

God has given us freedom of will. He has placed man within a limited domain. Its only from within that domain itself, that God allows for freedom of choice.

Which means that free will is an illusion: within our limited comprehension, we think we have free will, but ultimately it is already foreseen.

We did not choose the limits of that domain. In that sense we do not have free will. To have free will that you speak of? Would mean God could not create true life. For only God has the type of free will you think is free will. He would not be able to create a life, and only remain alone if we all had free will you speak of.

On the contrary, it is only the omniscience of the God of Judaeo-Christianity that I see as a barrier to free will. If his knowledge was not 'omni-' (that is, he had no foreknowledge), then I see no problem.
It is just the omniscience, nothing more.

God sets the boundaries and rules. Man is allowed to choose.

God also knows the outcome. How is that allowing us to choose?

Your version of free will could have said....

God? Be gone! I choose not to choose for such a thing!

​

They could not do that. In that sense we do not have free will. We have been given freedom of the will.

By your own admission, this freedom is limited, the outcomes foreknown. This is the illusion of free will, nothing more.

And, God does not do such things so he can find out who we are. He does it so we can discover about ourselves what he already knows. Its we who needs to discover what we want to choose.

Given his omnipotence, he could just create us with this knowledge to hand. Self-discovery is a roundabout way of doing things, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Nadiine]

God also knows the outcome. How is that allowing us to choose?

This might come off as rude, but,...... why do people not see how foreknowledge doesn't NEGATE free will?

God can KNOW something yet allow it to take its course. Take sin for instance.
God created a sinless world - YET ALLOWED IT TO ENTER IN by giving the creation a "choice" of good or rebellion to good.
THAT IS A CHOICE OF WILL that God doesn't want to happen, but He ALLOWS it to happen.

God doesn't want people to refuse Him, yet He allows them to (you're living proof of that will right now).

Foreknowledge doesn't remove our free will/ability to choose what we do; even when it's to our own peril.

 

[JonF]

I disagree. I believe my definition of free will encompasses the general notion people think of when they hear the phrase 'free will'.

No it doesn’t. At least not the general public who has put any time or thought into the concept of freewill. I gave you a reference from Stanford with the general notions of freewill. I suggest, if you honestly wanna prove something about consistency between the will and omniscience that you adopt one of them or something similar for your definition and go from there. Also, for the general public free will doesn’t have anything to do with the notion of predictability. I think you may be committing the converse of what most people (including myself) believe.

I wonder if you would have come to this conclusion before I posited that omniscient and free will cannot coexist.

Of course not, because you gave us your definition of free will after you posted they are inconsistent. This is also irrelevant to our discussion.

Why can a prediction not be certain? A prediction is just a claim about the future; there is nothing intrinsically 'uncertain' about it.

I was just trying to be helpful and let you know the name that is normally used for what you are talking about in philosophy. It is certainty.

I don't see how: your objections were concerning my definition of free will, specifically that I did not define 'unpredictable'.

ok, ill quote my central objection once more for you:

This is basically what your saying: I define free will to be the state of the non existence of an omniscient thus free will isn’t compatible with the existence of an omniscient being.

Watch, I can prove anything can’t coexistence with free will the same way you did:

I define free will to be: the state of nothing being domesticated in the universe.
Thus dogs and freewill can’t coexist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This might come off as rude, but,...... why do people not see how foreknowledge doesn't NEGATE free will?

Why do people not see how foreknowledge does? C'est la vie.

God can KNOW something yet allow it to take its course. Take sin for instance.
God created a sinless world - YET ALLOWED IT TO ENTER IN by giving the creation a "choice" of good or rebellion to good.
THAT IS A CHOICE OF WILL that God doesn't want to happen, but He ALLOWS it to happen.

God, in his omniscience, knew that we would rebel. Indeed, he created Hell in preperation for this foreseen outcome.

God doesn't want people to refuse Him, yet He allows them to (you're living proof of that will right now).

How so?

Foreknowledge doesn't remove our free will/ability to choose what we do; even when it's to our own peril.

Foreknowledge doesn't remove free will, it just belies the possibility of it's existance. Consider a triangle whose internal angles sum to 180°: this trigonometric fact allows us to deduce the geometry upon which the triangle is based, but it doesn't actively remove the other geometries.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

ok, ill quote my central objection once more for you:

This is basically what your saying: I define free will to be the state of the non existence of an omniscient thus free will isn’t compatible with the existence of an omniscient being.

Watch, I can prove anything can’t coexistence with free will the same way you did:

I define free will to be: the state of nothing being domesticated in the universe.
Thus dogs and freewill can’t coexist.

Except my definition is not defined in terms of omnisciency. Hence why I replied as I did.

 

[JonF]

Except my definition is not defined in terms of omnisciency. Hence why I replied as I did.

neither is my definition about dogs. Just a necessary attribute for an object to have "dogness". Just like certainty is a necessary attribute for an object to have omniscience.

Here is the problem. You are actually committing an equivocation fallacy of definition.

Most people mean “free will” to mean something. You define free will* to be something else. You should something that everyone agrees about free will* and then claim it applies to “free will”.

 

[Nadiine]

neither is my definition about dogs. Just a necessary attribute for an object to have "dogness". Just like certainty is a necessary attribute for an object to have omniscience.

Here is the problem. You are actually committing an equivocation fallacy of definition.

Most people mean “free will” to mean something. You define free will* to be something else. You should something that everyone agrees about free will* and then claim it applies to “free will”.

This has been my problem on this thread - definition. In how I view freewill, omnisciency has perfect compatibility.
If someone defines it as something else (which it may not even legitimately be), then they can be "correct" in their skewed definition of it.

I can pretty much make myself correct if I use my own dictionary of terms lol.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

neither is my definition about dogs. Just a necessary attribute for an object to have "dogness". Just like certainty is a necessary attribute for an object to have omniscience.

Here is the problem. You are actually committing an equivocation fallacy of definition.

Most people mean “free will” to mean something. You define free will* to be something else. You should something that everyone agrees about free will* and then claim it applies to “free will”.

I have never intentionally fallaciously equivocated my definition to the 'standard' definition. Indeed, I believe my definition to encompass, or be encompassed by, the 'standard' definition.

 

[JonF]

I have never intentionally fallaciously equivocated my definition to the 'standard' definition. Indeed, I believe my definition to encompass, or be encompassed by, the 'standard' definition.

Then everyone agrees with your argument. Omniscience and your version of free will aren’t compatible. But anyone who believe in the existence of any omniscient object, or probably any form of determinism (since you made a problematic claim) just deny that your version of free will exist.

I gave you a reference from Stanford (a fairly credible source on philosophy) on what standard definitions of free will are. Your concept of free will is slightly trivial since it’s existence is predicate of your notion of causation and if the universe is indeterminate, determinate, or fatalistic universe. Again, if you really want to prove anything about the universe I suggest you adopt a standard definition.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Then everyone agrees with your argument. Omniscience and your version of free will aren’t compatible. But anyone who believe in the existence of any omniscient object, or probably any form of determinism (since you made a problematic claim) just deny that your version of free will exist.

That in itself is problematic: my definition encompasses, or is encompassed by, the 'standard' definition.
For the record, how do you define free will?

 

[JonF]

That in itself is problematic:

Problematic in the philosophical sense doesn’t mean there is a problem with what you wrote. It means it isn’t a claim that’s about necessity or actuality, but rather about what COULD happen. Your claim as I interrupted it is problematic. There doesn’t have to actually be a being that could make a certain prediction in existence for us to not have freewill – there just has to be the possibility of it’s existence.

my definition encompasses, or is encompassed by, the 'standard' definition.

For the record

no it doesn’t did you read the definitions I gave you?

You don’t mention moral agency, causality, or mechanism anywhere in your definition.

how do you define free will?

It depends on what I’m using it in reference too. In this conversation (since we are talking about the existence of God) I would probably give a working definition of free will as: A responsible moral agency whose desires while my be based on external events or objects affinity is a completely internalized mechanism.

Since im a determinist, I don’t think causality is all that important when discussing the will.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Problematic in the philosophical sense doesn’t mean there is a problem with what you wrote. It means it isn’t a claim that’s about necessity or actuality, but rather about what COULD happen. Your claim as I interrupted it is problematic. There doesn’t have to actually be a being that could make a certain prediction in existence for us to not have freewill – there just has to be the possibility of it’s existence.

Then you did not interpret it as I intended. My argument was, in effect, to create a 'three-way dichotomy': either an omniscient exists, or free will exists, or neither exist. Or rather, to negate the possibility of both an omniscienct and free will.

no it doesn’t did you read the definitions I gave you?

You don’t mention moral agency, causality, or mechanism anywhere in your definition.

They are implicitly mentioned. For example, unpredictability belies mechanism.

It depends on what I’m using it in reference too. In this conversation (since we are talking about the existence of God) I would probably give a working definition of free will as: A responsible moral agency whose desires while my be based on external events or objects affinity is a completely internalized mechanism.

Of course, this requires further definitions:
What does it mean to be 'responsible'?
What is a 'moral agency'?
What do you mean by 'desires'?
What do you mean by 'internalised mechanism'?
I have my own ideas about these concepts, but far be it for me to impose my substandard definitions...

 

[GenemZ]

I disagree. There are other situations which would negate our free will.

You.. disagree? Who made you disagree?

God knew you would disagree. Does that mean you were not free to disagree? That you have no choice but to not believe in freedom of will? You are now not free, and must reject the notion of freedom of will?

Perhaps, but it is the foreknowledge that interests me.

God's foreknowledge is knowing what will happen. God's omniscience is knowing all that could have happened. God knows all that could have happened if you were born in another country. Yet, his foreknowledge knows where you would be born. God's foreknowledge makes our life less confusing. He could have set up a system of having us being reborn into this world many times. And, each time the only question he is concerned about would end up the same. What does man think of Christ?

He could have had you been born poor, or born rich. It would not matter. He could have had you born a musician or a doctor... it would not matter. Your soul is what makes you who you are.

Even if you able to redo your life a million times. A million different ways. In the end, there would be always the same answer. You would always either reject Christ, or believe. That's what God is after. All else is incidental. All else is the setting to discover our choice.

God's foreknowledge simplifies and expedites life so he can get us to where he wants us to be. In Eternity. Time is just God's quality control check of the soul. To reveal what it will do.

I fail to see where Jesus comes into all this.

Well? If we did not have free will? Everyone would believe in Jesus Christ. The fact that men reject him reveals that God has not preprogrammed our wills.

1 Timothy 2:3-5 (New International Version)
"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
​

​

In one sense it pleases God that men are able to reject him. For it proves he achieved the near impossible. That he was able to create a real life. Life that can reason and choose for itself.

For, if we were only simply divinely designed biological machines? Programmed at the factory? All men would believe in Jesus Christ.

For its his desire that all men do. The fact that men reject Christ? Reveals to God's glory that he succeeded in creating real life outside of Himself.

Which means that free will is an illusion: within our limited comprehension, we think we have free will, but ultimately it is already foreseen.

Are you not free to believe what you now do? To believe what you just said? Or, is someone making you have that thought that you are not free to have that thought? If that were true? You really do not think. Then? Why try to influence my thinking?

By coming here in trying to make your point, disproves your point. For to make your point? No one could change their mind. Then? Why make your point? One can only change their mind if they have freedom of will!

In Christ, GeneZ






.
​

 

[JonF]

Then you did not interpret it as I intended. My argument was, in effect, to create a 'three-way dichotomy': either an omniscient exists, or free will exists, or neither exist. Or rather, to negate the possibility of both an omniscienct and free will.

You misunderstand me, in your definition of free will; the fact that something be predictable negates free will is problematic.

They are implicitly mentioned. For example, unpredictability belies mechanism.

no, mechanical in this sense just means with process

Of course, this requires further definitions:

What does it mean to be 'responsible'?
What is a 'moral agency'?
What do you mean by 'desires'?
What do you mean by 'internalised mechanism'?
I have my own ideas about these concepts, but far be it for me to impose my substandard definitions

I can define each of these things if you want or you could look up the standard definitions yourself, but I sense you are trying to argue by infinite regression, which again is a fallacy. You seem to take offense by my use of “substandard” in philosophy it’s a neutral term. It doesn’t mean bad, or anything like it – it just means not the normal or standard. But, again, I don’t really like your definition for the previously mentioned reasons, but hey if that’s what you want to use that’s fine, but your conclusion is both trivial and irrelevant to Christianity.

 

[GenemZ]

This is how I view it as well. The point I get from it all is this, THIS IS HOW LIFE IS AS WE KNOW IT'S SET UP - now deal with it and make your choices.

Here's your new car. Now, dive safely.

Imho, ANY way God sets things up, you're going to have people whining and complaining about what they don't like and what they don't get... or what they get too much or too little of.... blah blah blah.

Moses had to put up with that for forty years. Most, God killed off during that time. Whiners or Winners. God is out to find out.

THIS IS how it is, now we have to work with what we have before us. I went thru a long period of anger in my teens that I was even born. I didn't ASK to be born and I wished I never was - I had no choice. Everything sucked - I wanted to live as a wild child, and my parents were Baptist Christians -- I lived in hell.

Legalism? Were they legalistic? Some Baptists are very rigid and that way. Not all are. Legalism is hell no matter where it takes root.

And I DID believe God existed - I would never mock God, I'd never deny God... I just wanted to live my own way & have my fun. So "fun" to me was a heavy burden becuz I lived in guilt of my lifestyle knowing that it wasn't right.

Sounds like the Holy Spirit was doing his job there. His job is to convict of sin. Not to prevent it. When we choose not to sin (as we grow) the Holy Spirit enables (grace) us to live as we wish we could, but do not have the power to do so. Grace is that power.

THAT made me wish I wasn't born bcuz I even tho I could live my way (as I snuck around to accomplish my own will), I knew I'd have to answer to God for it.

Actually, you had to answer to yourself. God always knew. You had to decide for yourself how you wanted to live. If you chose for God's way? Then he was always there and more than willing to provide you the grace to do so.

Anyways, we have "limited" free will - in that, we cannot change the laws of the universe we're subjected to or placed under - but we can make life choices within that structure.

Here's your new car. Now, dive safely.

The fact that God knows what we'll do from start to finish doesn't negate the fact that we still use our free will - He just knows what it will be and allows us do it (and has most likely already made a provision for that in His plan at times).
If that's not the case, then ALL people would believe the same things and come to agreement w/ and acceptance of salvation from this God.

God wants for us the very best. The fact that not all will receive rewards in Heaven reveals that God will not interfere with our wills. He may try and influence along the way. But, the fact that believers forfeit rewards reveals that his influence was just that. We still had to decide.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15 (New International Version)
"For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light.

It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward.

If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames."
​

Its God's will that we can not lose our salvation.

"If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames."
​

Its the will of the one who is saved to determine if he will lose, or keep, the rewards God created to accompany that salvation. Those rewards are already there. God's will for us is to have the very best. Yet, God allows our will to over ride his will, in areas he has allowed for it.

Grace and peace, GeneZ







.
​