Why a true omniscient cannot coexist with true free will.

[HuntingMan]

Thanks WC, for being civil in your post.

Agreed. Control is not the issue.

This is an issue I see from some and I think it stems from many peoples mistaken view that all Christians might be Calvinists of some sort and that absolute control is what God is all about.

I am confused. From my point of view, can I choose to pick box B? The alleged-omniscient predicts box A (but hasn't told me as such), but can I choose box B if I so wish?

Thats the point.
Yes, you 'can' pick B if you so chose to. The Being would simply know the outcome, not having to actually play any part in that decision.

I don't see how. I set up a thought experiment highlighting the logical contradiction that arises when one assume true omniscience and true free will to simultaneously exist.
That is, I explained why a true omniscient cannot coexist with true free will. The thread title seems apt.

The concept that I believed was present in the title before I actually came into the thread was quite thought provoking, honestly, as I explained in my first post.
With what I believed was being presented in your title here, I can completely agree.
Without true free will there is no true omniscience...only a controlled outcome...
It doesnt take being infinitely knowing just to manipulate the outcome...it simply takes the ability to control it.

I disagree. If free will doesn't exist, then the outcome of a trial is determined soley by mathematical laws.

We're on completely different pages here...most likely not even reading the same book.
I assumed that we were discussing whether the omniscient being was controlling or not based on his foreknowledge.
That isnt the case?
I would disagree entirely with 'solely' there.
If free will doesnt exist, and this Being does, it could hardly be determined whether probability was the cause for any particular event, or if the outcome was being 'controlled' by this Being.

If God exists as I believe and we remove free will from the mix, it would seem more likely that the hypercalvinist is correct and every single aspect and detail of creation is controlled down to the direction of every wind.

Given these laws and sufficient information about the present, even non-omniscients could predict the future.

Now, this isnt really fair of you to pull a bait and switch on me here, poster.
Are we discussing determining probabilities or is this about omniscience which is hardly the same?
Im not one who believes that God 'predicts'...that would be what Satan and his angels would do, lacking omniscience themselves.

Equivocation. An omniscient entity that interferes with reality is still omniscient.

I would agree that the being 'can' manipulate and still be omniscient, yes.
But if this Being is micromanaging every detail there is no need for omniscience as far as knowing future events.

 

[MelissaShae]

God has no sense of time. It means nothing to Him. Now if he may have seen your future, but it has not happened for you yet, so you have the ability to make the decisions you want to make, the only difference is that God already knows what you will choose.......he doesn't make the choice, he simply watches you make the choice.

I can understand how it is very hard to grasp because we live in a world where time is everything so to think that someone has already seen our future and knows what we are going to do seems very outrageous and unlikely.

 

[chaz345]

Indeed. But you have not answered my question: can I pick box B?

You can pick which ever box you want. That God knows which one you will pick does not make your choice any less free.

Hardly: the entire point of this thread is for you (and those who believe like you) to reconcile the dilemma. From my point of view, I cannot see how true free will can coexist with true omniscience.

There is no real dilemma to reconcile. The dilemma is only created when you try to combine two mutually exclusive perspectives.

The scenario explicitly deals with whether our free will is true, or if it is an illusion. My conclusion is that if true omniscience exists, then our free will is an illusion: we only appear to have a choice.

Our hand is not forced, but neither is it granted free will.

True from what perspective? See the entire "dilemma" is completely one of a clash of perspectives, one that we have and one that we can never have. From where we sit, the choice is real and free. It matters not, in terms of the realness or freedom of the choice that from a different perspective, one that we cannot have, that the choice appears to be pre-ordained.

Like I said before, God knowing the choice we will make doesn't make the choice any less real or free.

 

[metherion]

There is a huge gap between 'can' and 'will'. You can pick either box. But you will pick box A if the being is truly omniscient. Remember, you do not know what the being knows you will do. And because the being knows what you will do, it does not mean you are unable to do something else; it merely means that you will not. But the choice still must be made at some point. Simply because the outcome of the choice is known by a non-interfering observer does not mean the choice isn't made.

Metherion

 

[hiumble1]

I think you might be getting yourself confused...
Just because someone knows the outcome does not change free will... You still choose... I already know what you will choose...
When you state You will choose A (or God Knows you will choose A) but what if you were to choose B... You are focusing to much on what I know you will choose instead of just choosing, when you do that you slowly give up control and give to the one whom you are trying to predict how he will predict you to choose... (I am sure that sentence will have a dog chasing its tail)...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Thanks WC, for being civil in your post.

A sharp blow will change a man's actions, but only a civil tongue will change his thoughts.

This is an issue I see from some and I think it stems from many peoples mistaken view that all Christians might be Calvinists of some sort and that absolute control is what God is all about.

Indeed. As I understand it, free will is a bewilderingly high-held paramount. Personally, I would sacrifice my own free will in a heartbeat if it alleviated the suffering of another living being. But I digress...

Thats the point.
Yes, you 'can' pick B if you so chose to. The Being would simply know the outcome, not having to actually play any part in that decision.

The being believes that I will pick A. If I pick B, it's belief will be proven wrong, and thus it cannot be omniscient. So if the entity is omniscient, I cannot pick box B. It is control by proxy: the very existance of the entity necessitates that I pick box A.

Without true free will there is no true omniscience...only a controlled outcome...

This is the opposite of the title: with free will there is no true omniscience, and vice versa.

It doesnt take being infinitely knowing just to manipulate the outcome...it simply takes the ability to control it.

Indeed.

I assumed that we were discussing whether the omniscient being was controlling or not based on his foreknowledge.

Close. I was asking whether omniscience gives us any options: how can we have free will if there is only one action we can do?

I would disagree entirely with 'solely' there.
If free will doesnt exist, and this Being does, it could hardly be determined whether probability was the cause for any particular event, or if the outcome was being 'controlled' by this Being.

If free will doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist in the omniscient either. There is no reason why our universe cannot have free will; more generally, there is no reason why entities cannot evolve that derive and comprehend the mathematical laws that govern their predictable universe.
In any case, the laws exist whether observed or not.

If God exists as I believe and we remove free will from the mix, it would seem more likely that the hypercalvinist is correct and every single aspect and detail of creation is controlled down to the direction of every wind.

Not necessarily. If I throw a ball through the air, there isn't necessarily an invisible hand guiding it along it's parabolic trajectory. This is true even if your particular god exists.
It's worth reminding you that aside from this one point, I use 'God' in this thread as a placeholder for the omniscient being in my OP. Just in case you get more theology than is there

Now, this isnt really fair of you to pull a bait and switch on me here, poster.
Are we discussing determining probabilities or is this about omniscience which is hardly the same?
Im not one who believes that God 'predicts'...that would be what Satan and his angels would do, lacking omniscience themselves.

In my scenario, God is an alleged omniscient: he makes a prediction because the outcome itself has not happened yet. If God is a true omniscient, then his predictions (or, more accurately, foreknowledge) will be accurate 100% of the time.

Anyway, my point here was that in a deterministic universe, we can predict with 100% certainty the outcome of a given trial if we are given sufficient information about the present, and the laws that govern the universe.

I would agree that the being 'can' manipulate and still be omniscient, yes.
But if this Being is micromanaging every detail there is no need for omniscience as far as knowing future events.

Aha, it may be omniscient because it micromanages!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You can pick which ever box you want.

In this case, no omniscient can coexist with me.

That God knows which one you will pick does not make your choice any less free.

On the contrary, my choices are limited to but one box: the box God predicts I will pick.

There is no real dilemma to reconcile. The dilemma is only created when you try to combine two mutually exclusive perspectives.

Which is preciesly what some people do: they presume that humans have true free will, and that an omniscient exists. The dilemma is the apparent logical contradiction that arises: these premises cannot be simultaneously true if they lead to a logical contradiction.

True from what perspective?

I'm sorry?

See the entire "dilemma" is completely one of a clash of perspectives, one that we have and one that we can never have. From where we sit, the choice is real and free. It matters not, in terms of the realness or freedom of the choice that from a different perspective, one that we cannot have, that the choice appears to be pre-ordained.

Nor is there any relevance in debating origins. We still do it, however.
If you wish to bow out, do so.

Like I said before, God knowing the choice we will make doesn't make the choice any less real or free.

I disagree: we are incapable of choosing other than what the omniscient predicts us to.

 

[MelissaShae]

God does not predict. He already knows. Let's say that Box A is something that will kill you and Box B is perfectly safe and you decide to choose A, God knew that you would make that decision because he already knows all the decisions you will make. But just becaue he knows that decision will kill you, he lets you make it and does not step in and make you choose B. So he is not interferring with our choices, just being a silent observer.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There is a huge gap between 'can' and 'will'. You can pick either box. But you will pick box A if the being is truly omniscient.

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

Simply because the outcome of the choice is known by a non-interfering observer does not mean the choice isn't made.

Perhaps, but the choice is still limited to just one option: box A.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Let's say that Box A is something that will kill you and Box B is perfectly safe and you decide to choose A, God knew that you would make that decision because he already knows all the decisions you will make. But just becaue he knows that decision will kill you, he lets you make it and does not step in and make you choose B. So he is not interferring with our choices, just being a silent observer.

Agreed. My point still stands, however.

 

[chaz345]

I


I disagree: we are incapable of choosing other than what the omniscient predicts us to.

The omnicient is predicting nothing, they are merely observing. To an omnicient who knows all things that have happened and all things that will happen sometime in the future, there is no difference to them if it is something that happened in our yesterday or if it is something that will happen in our tomorrow. There's no prediction, just knoweledge.

 

[mooduck1]

God exists outside of time and space 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'.

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.

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

*The word is only a placeholder for 'the omniscient'. Don't read too much theology from this

 

[MelissaShae]

Agreed. My point still stands, however.

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

 

[elcapitan]

God exists outside of time and space 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'.

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.

 

[elcapitan]

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

Let me explain it to you

Rule 1. God knows, with absolute certainty, that you will choose box A.

Rule 2. You choose box A. You cannot choose box B because doing so would be against Rule 1.

By logic, you have only 1 option, and thus no free will.

 

[HuntingMan]

Let me explain it to you

Rule 1. God knows, with absolute certainty, that you will choose box A.

Rule 2. You choose box A. You cannot choose box B because doing so would be against Rule 1.

By logic, you have only 1 option, and thus no free will.

Completely non-sequitor argument, Im afraid.

Knowing the outcome does NOT remove the ability to make the choice..
Youre looking at things on a very superficial and limited level....

 

[elcapitan]

Completely non-sequitor argument, Im afraid.

Knowing the outcome does NOT remove the ability to make the choice..
Youre looking at things on a very superficial and limited level....

I think you misunderstood me.

You're right in that it doesn't remove the ability to choose, but it does elimate every choice except one (the one that God knows you will take). So, if you only have one option in every situation, is it really free will?

 

[HuntingMan]

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

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.

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

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.

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

Perhaps, but the choice is still limited to just one option: 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.

 

[HuntingMan]

I think you misunderstood me.

You're right in that it doesn't remove the ability to choose, but it does elimate every choice except one (the one that God knows you will take). So, if you only have one option in every situation, is it really free will?

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.

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 ?

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

Now, if God 'foreordained' the choice, that is another issue altogether.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The omnicient is predicting nothing, they are merely observing.

The omniscient, by definition, knows what is going to happen. It predicts what will happen because it makes a claim (albiet privately) that I will pick box A. If it is truely omniscience, then it will be correct 100% of the time. If I pick box B, then it cannot be truely omniscient.

To an omnicient who knows all things that have happened and all things that will happen sometime in the future, there is no difference to them if it is something that happened in our yesterday or if it is something that will happen in our tomorrow. There's no prediction, just knoweledge.

I disagree. Just because it knows preciesly what will happen, is happening, and did happen, does not in any way mean it cannot distinguish between the three tenses.