- Mar 21, 2005
- 19,419
- 673
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Why?
Which is one of my two conclusions: if an omniscient exists, then free will is an illusion.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
God exists outside of time and space
Which is one of my two conclusions: if an omniscient exists, then free will is an illusion.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'.
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.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.
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.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 ?
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.It would be illogical to conclude that mere observation, without interference, would alter the free will to choose.
You did not address my point. Therefore, it still stands.I'm sorry but I just don't see how.
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.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.
Of course not. But in this particular scenario, they are synonymous.What you 'will' or 'will not' do in no way defines what you 'can' or 'cannot' do.
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.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.
Naturally: the law of exclusive middle.Now, if you had said;
'If I WILL pick box A, then I WILL NOT pick B"
...THAT I can agree on logically.
Then tell me how you are just as free to choose box B when an omniscient has foreknowledge that you will choose box A.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.
Clarification: I do not know what the alleged-omniscient has predicted.ahhhhh....
but an omniscient being knowing that you know he knows
No: I have not made my decision yet. The omniscient knows what I will pick, but I have not even considered the scenario.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.
Indeed.(one just need follow the mouse)
I disagree. If I will pick box A, then I cannot pick box B.
Irrelevant. If the omniscient being knows, the knowledge exists.Remember, you do not know what the being knows.
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.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.
No-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-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.
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.....
No, we cannot know everything and thus our perception that we have free will is subjective. Only God has the objective viewpoint.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.
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.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 our logic doesn't apply to God, then any logical discourse regarding God (e.g. this thread) is meaningless.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.
That's doublethink. If He didn't know exactly what He would be doing in the year 2356, He would no longer be omniscient.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.
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)?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.
But what if God doesn't have free will?2) Man was created in a way that (one way or another) he 'd resemble God. Just like God we've free will.
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.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.
He already answered the question, in the very post you responded to!HAVE you not read your own mind?
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?
Ok.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.
Why should it be confusing?This discourse should lead to a very healthy confusion when talking about God's nature.
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.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.
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.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.
You mean, from our perception there is.I can't argue with that. God does not change. For God there is no beginning and no end. However for us there is.
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.
So long as there is a reply, I'm happySorry about the ~2 pages of posts between your response and my re-response.
Indeed. But the omniscient still knows.That is wrong. Will and can are different things. Remember, you do not know what the being knows.
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.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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?