Why a true omniscient cannot coexist with true free will.

[Wiccan_Child]

God exists outside of time and space

Why?

so to apply the same standard to both God and man is seriously flawed. It's really a matter of perspective. From man's point of view inside of time and space, we have free will. For God, everything happened, is happening and will continue to happen all at once. So, from GOD's point of view there is no 'free will'.

Which is one of my two conclusions: if an omniscient exists, then free will is an illusion.

 

[elcapitan]

Again, I believe you are looking at this on a very shallow and limited level.
I see no reason to believe that because someone, somewhere knew the outcome that there is any removal of the ability to choose.

Once again, you still have the ability to choose, but there's only one option to choose from: the choice that God knows you will take.

Lets say God doesnt exist for one moment.....now that no one knows what choice I am to make, does that now give me free will to choose ?

The whole premise behind this thread is that an omniscient being exists. If an omniscient did not exist, then yes, you'd be able to choose box B.

It would be illogical to conclude that mere observation, without interference, would alter the free will to choose.

Once again, there's no interference with the ability to choose. The problem is that the options to choose from have been narrowed down to only one option, because an omniscient being knows that it is the one you will pick. You may perceive the other options as being valid, but you can't actually choose them because God knows you won't and God's knowledge is absolute.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm sorry but I just don't see how.

You did not address my point. Therefore, it still stands.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Now see, thats just a semantics game...bait and switch again.

"will / will not" does not equate to "can / cannot" ....they simply are not comparable concepts in this example.

I agree that they are not necessarily synonymous, but in this particular scenario they are. I cannot choose box B if an omniscient has foreknowledge that I will pick box A. I will not choose box B, for whatever reason, if an omniscient has such foreknowledge.

What you 'will' or 'will not' do in no way defines what you 'can' or 'cannot' do.

Of course not. But in this particular scenario, they are synonymous.

As elcaptain is doing, youre presenting a non-sequitor argument....it does not follow that if I 'will' do something that I 'cannot' do something else.

I am not saying that one leads to the other. I am using the terms synonymously because the nature of the scenario allows me to do so without loosing generality.

Now, if you had said;
'If I WILL pick box A, then I WILL NOT pick B"
...THAT I can agree on logically.

Naturally: the law of exclusive middle.

Only in your own mind and perceptions, poster.
I can look at what is being presented and see the ability to choose just as you seem to not be able to see it.
Possibly its just how each of us understands the scenario....possibly tainted by personal beliefs/views, who knows....but when I look at the example, Im sorry but I do not see any removal of 'choice' involved.

Then tell me how you are just as free to choose box B when an omniscient has foreknowledge that you will choose box A.



A side note: when I say, 'x will do y' I mean x is predicted to do y in the future; e.g., 'You will obey me'. One's intentions (as in, 'free will') is not what is mentioned here.

 

[hiumble1]

ahhhhh....
but an omniscient being knowing that you know he knows will know what you are knowingly doing and what you do and therefore have chosen what you "think" he has chosen proving your chose initially was flawed and knowing that you were all along going to choose B thinking he knew you were going to choose A when in Fact you thought he knew you to choose A when you actually chose B so you did not Choose A at all but in fact Chose B.

(one just need follow the mouse)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

ahhhhh....
but an omniscient being knowing that you know he knows

Clarification: I do not know what the alleged-omniscient has predicted.

will know what you are knowingly doing and what you do and therefore have chosen what you "think" he has chosen proving your chose initially was flawed and knowing that you were all along going to choose B thinking he knew you were going to choose A when in Fact you thought he knew you to choose A when you actually chose B so you did not Choose A at all but in fact Chose B.

No: I have not made my decision yet. The omniscient knows what I will pick, but I have not even considered the scenario.
If it makes it any easier for you to understand, suppose that I have not yet heard of the experiment I am about to partake in. How, then, could I preemtively choose in such a way as to try to coopt the omniscient's omnisciency?
Did you even read the OP?

(one just need follow the mouse)

Indeed.

PS: 3000th post

 

[metherion]

Sorry about the ~2 pages of posts between your response and my re-response.

I disagree. If I will pick box A, then I cannot pick box B.

That is wrong. Will and can are different things. Remember, you do not know what the being knows. At no point is the choice of box B denied to you. When the being knew you would pick box A the choice to pick B is not magically denied to you (or denied in any nonmagical way). It is within the realm of possibility. It just won't happen. But it could. That possibility of it happening means that there is still a choice. You still have to actually do the picking.

If there is nothing that denies you the possibility of picking B, then you still have free choice. A being knowing what you will pick in no way denies you the ability to pick B.

Metherion

 

[elcapitan]

Remember, you do not know what the being knows.

Irrelevant. If the omniscient being knows, the knowledge exists.

At no point is the choice of box B denied to you. When the being knew you would pick box A the choice to pick B is not magically denied to you (or denied in any nonmagical way). It is within the realm of possibility. It just won't happen. But it could. That possibility of it happening means that there is still a choice. You still have to actually do the picking.

If there is nothing that denies you the possibility of picking B, then you still have free choice. A being knowing what you will pick in no way denies you the ability to pick B.

You still have to do the picking, but there is only one option to choose from: the option that the omniscient being knows you will pick. Please keep in mind that the omniscient being has absolute knowledge of what you will pick, this knowledge can never be wrong. Thus, if the being knows you will pick Box A, you can never pick Box B. Box B may seem like an option you can choose, but you cannnot because doing so would contradict the knowledge of the omniscient being.

 

[MrdeRastignac]

Forget the boxes, that example is reasonably easy to explain.

Yet, the OP has a point, but took the wrong example IMO; let's consider the Creation.

Why would God create the earth and us human beings (as is) and declare them to be 'good' when he already knew these men would be ruining His work.

Giving mankind free will is certainly not a design flaw, but a choice of God (he didn't want to be a Master of Puppets), but then the question remains: why did He create everything as He did.....

 

[mooduck1]

Why?
Because the creator cannot be part of it's creation. If that were case then he wouldn't be anything more than a participant in creation. Christians believe that God created the world exnilo Out of nothing.
[/color][/size]
Which is one of my two conclusions: if an omniscient exists, then free will is an illusion.

No-
once again God is not part of the system. OUR objective reality is that there is free will and that random things happen. GOD is not part of our system so it is wrong to apply the same standard to God.

 

[mooduck1]

So man's subjective view is reality? When you close your eyes, do you think that it makes the world disappear?

Hopefully you can see why the "differing perspectives" argument is wrong if an objective reality exists.

If an omniscient being exists we can have only one choice in every situation, regardless of whether we see it that way from our perspective or not.

No-
OUR reality is objective. However you have to understand that God is not part of our reality.God does not exist inside his own creation - he is distinctly separate. He can interact with it occasionally and to the extant that he has, in those instances in time he subjected himself to time and space and reality. Perhaspe my use of the word 'perspectives' was fussy. The point is that God's 'experience' (trying to find a better word so give me some slack on the meanings here) can NOT be compared to ours. The creator is not part of creation and therefore not subject to the system. He does not exist in time he just exists. If you are going to assume a God, you have to understand that logical standards that are great to apply to things that happen in our reality do not cannot and must not apply to an Omnipresent-super real God.

 

[MrdeRastignac]

Forget the boxes, that example is reasonably easy to explain.

Yet, the OP has a point, but took the wrong example IMO; let's consider the Creation.

Why would God create the earth and us human beings (as is) and declare them to be 'good' when he already knew these men would be ruining His work.

Giving mankind free will is certainly not a design flaw, but a choice of God (he didn't want to be a Master of Puppets), but then the question remains: why did He create everything as He did.....

Okay, having posted this myself, let's try to explain something like this. Please note that this is only a possible theological/philosophical and hypothetical explanation just made up by me.

1) God is omniscient, however God has a free will of his own. But God can't know exactly what He would be doing in the year 2356, as otherwise He would be a slave of His own omniscient nature. All He does is good and just.. of course! But God is also Grace and He clearly doesn't heal or punishes everybody who asks for it. So that gives Him a choice (just one person was healed @ Bethesda).
In a way one could argue that this omniscient nature is only truly valid outside God.

2) Man was created in a way that (one way or another) he 'd resemble God. Just like God we've free will. Let's see that 'free will' as a kind of divine attribute (being in a way part of God, or God's nature). Hence, following from 1) the omniscient nature of God doesn't have to be 100% valid with respect to us men....

How could the Heavens rejoice for every saved sinner, if they already knew this before Creation. That would just be old news...

 

[hiumble1]

It seems to me you do not listen to your own.
You STATED in the open that the omni will know
HAVE you not read your own mind?
[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).]


Good luck with chasing your tail....

Congrats on the 3,000 thing

 

[elcapitan]

OUR objective reality is that there is free will and that random things happen.

No, we cannot know everything and thus our perception that we have free will is subjective. Only God has the objective viewpoint.

GOD is not part of our system so it is wrong to apply the same standard to God.

No-
OUR reality is objective. However you have to understand that God is not part of our reality.

If God's not part of our reality, then why bother saying he exists, since his existence makes no difference to us? I don't think you really mean He's not part of our reality.

God does not exist inside his own creation - he is distinctly separate. He can interact with it occasionally and to the extant that he has, in those instances in time he subjected himself to time and space and reality. Perhaspe my use of the word 'perspectives' was fussy. The point is that God's 'experience' (trying to find a better word so give me some slack on the meanings here) can NOT be compared to ours. The creator is not part of creation and therefore not subject to the system. He does not exist in time he just exists.

The "God does not exist in time" argument has already been brought up on this thread. There are two problems with it:

1. Why are you assuming that God is outside of time?

2. If indeed he does exist outside of time, then all time exists simultaneously and the future is as immutable as the past.

If you are going to assume a God, you have to understand that logical standards that are great to apply to things that happen in our reality do not cannot and must not apply to an Omnipresent-super real God.

If our logic doesn't apply to God, then any logical discourse regarding God (e.g. this thread) is meaningless.

 

[elcapitan]

1) God is omniscient, however God has a free will of his own. But God can't know exactly what He would be doing in the year 2356, as otherwise He would be a slave of His own omniscient nature.

That's doublethink. If He didn't know exactly what He would be doing in the year 2356, He would no longer be omniscient.
Of course, this brings up another argument: If god is omniscient, can He Himself have free will? If He doesn't have free will, is He truly omnipotent?

All He does is good and just.. of course! But God is also Grace and He clearly doesn't heal or punishes everybody who asks for it. So that gives Him a choice (just one person was healed @ Bethesda).
In a way one could argue that this omniscient nature is only truly valid outside God.

So, now are you saying that God isn't omniscient? Is he just almost omniscient (i.e. knows everything except what He Himself will do)?

2) Man was created in a way that (one way or another) he 'd resemble God. Just like God we've free will.

But what if God doesn't have free will?
Even if you think He does, how does that imply that man would have free will? Man obviously doesn't have all the attributes of God, so why would he have free will in particular?

 

[mooduck1]

No, we cannot know everything and thus our perception that we have free will is subjective. Only God has the objective viewpoint.



If God's not part of our reality, then why bother saying he exists, since his existence makes no difference to us? I don't think you really mean He's not part of our reality.

The "God does not exist in time" argument has already been brought up on this thread. There are two problems with it:

1. Why are you assuming that God is outside of time?Because time is a construct of this universe. And of course, even it is relative to the observer and is it's self affected by massive objects such as large stars and black holes. I'm saying God is Beyond that.

2. If indeed he does exist outside of time, then all time exists simultaneously and the future is as immutable as the past. I can't argue with that. God does not change. For God there is no beginning and no end. However for us there is.

If our logic doesn't apply to God, then any logical discourse regarding God (e.g. this thread) is meaningless.

Well, I wouldn't say that this discourse is meaningless. However any healthy discourse about God should lead to a an expression of God's greatness and his glory, and there is a meditative benefit to pondering God's ways and his vastness.This discourse should lead to a very healthy confusion when talking about God's nature. Honestly, though anyone who has deluded themselves into thinking that they have 'figured God out' is arrogant at least and probably has delusions of grandeur in Hitler like proportions.

 

[elcapitan]

HAVE you not read your own mind?

He already answered the question, in the very post you responded to!

No: I have not made my decision yet. The omniscient knows what I will pick, but I have not even considered the scenario.
If it makes it any easier for you to understand, suppose that I have not yet heard of the experiment I am about to partake in. How, then, could I preemtively choose in such a way as to try to coopt the omniscient's omnisciency?
Did you even read the OP?

 

[elcapitan]

However any healthy discourse about God should lead to a an expression of God's greatness and his glory, and there is a meditative benefit to pondering God's ways and his vastness.

Ok.

This discourse should lead to a very healthy confusion when talking about God's nature.

Why should it be confusing?

Honestly, though anyone who has deluded themselves into thinking that they have 'figured God out' is arrogant at least and probably has delusions of grandeur in Hitler like proportions.

I'm not saying that I've figured out God, if that's what you're implying. I am merely applying logic to the assertions that we can make choices and that an omniscient being exists.

Also, thank you for fulfilling Godwin's Law.

edit: I didn't see the comments you inserted into my quote (please learn how to use the quote system).

Because time is a construct of this universe. And of course, even it is relative to the observer and is it's self affected by massive objects such as large stars and black holes. I'm saying God is Beyond that.

But why is He beyond that? Second of all, I hadn't brought it up before, but special relativity also implies that the future is determined.

I can't argue with that. God does not change. For God there is no beginning and no end. However for us there is.

You mean, from our perception there is.
The omniscient being knows the true way things are, and has the only objective viewpoint. For us, then, the flow of time and making choices would be an illusion.

 

[mooduck1]

Ok.

Why should it be confusing? Because... you can only know what you know based on your universe. Since God is outside it, you cannot really make 'sense' out of God...

I'm not saying that I've figured out God, if that's what you're implying. I am merely applying logic to the assertions that we can make choices and that an omniscient being exists.

Also, thank you for fulfilling Godwin's Law.

Touche! I apologize if you took my "Hitler" comment to be directed at you. It was not, especailly since you admitt that you haven't 'figured God out'. We will have to agree to disagree on free will. We won't be the first 2 very smart people to do that. greater minds than my own have debated this. I will always assert that God is above us so trying to compare us (God and man) like we are in any way connected logically beyond any DIRECT intervention on God's part is just foolish. And you will always believe that I am wrogn so continuing this conversation may do nothing more than demonstrating god's Glory in it's futility.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Sorry about the ~2 pages of posts between your response and my re-response.

So long as there is a reply, I'm happy

That is wrong. Will and can are different things. Remember, you do not know what the being knows.

Indeed. But the omniscient still knows.

At no point is the choice of box B denied to you. When the being knew you would pick box A the choice to pick B is not magically denied to you (or denied in any nonmagical way). It is within the realm of possibility. It just won't happen. But it could. That possibility of it happening means that there is still a choice. You still have to actually do the picking.

If there is a possibility of it happening, then you cannot state that it won't happen: that is the very definition of probability. If it is possible, then you cannot state that it won't. The two are mutually exclusive terms.

If there is nothing that denies you the possibility of picking B, then you still have free choice. A being knowing what you will pick in no way denies you the ability to pick B.

I disagree. From my point of view, nothing has changed. But to an impartial observer (such as the omniscient itself), I am limited to one choice: box A.