Why a true omniscient cannot coexist with true free will.

[Digit]

I think he was referring to you.

You're the one who claims to know all about how God works, after all.

Doesn't really matter either way. Perhaps he was referring to all of us. I am happy enough to be able to know exactly what he means by it though. I don't put forward my view of things as a certainty, I never said that. I simply said maybe this will help you guys in understanding it. Yet at the end of the day I don't for a second really believe you want there to be a God, so your default position will always fall on the side of the fence coloured thusly.

I think all Christians claim to know how God works, and also claim not to know a great many things. Afterall, we are given what is in scripture. I can safely say God will do some things and not others, based on scripture. I know He won't lie, ever. Does that mean I am an arrogant creation that believes he created God? Hardly, it simply means I read scripture and more importantly, I understood it. >_>

I don't think anyone has done that on this thread.

Oh please, don't play coy. That's exactly where this and the thousands of other attempts at the same thing head eventually. It's just a stepping stone on a path to denounce God's existance.

Digit

 

[Digit]

It appears to me that the problem in this discussion is that the two focal terms, omniscient and free will, have not been adequately defined. It seems both sides are talking past each other increasing their post count but adding nothing to the body of knowledge.

Good point:

I will go with:

[SIZE=-1]Omniscient:
"The narrator knows everything, can shift in time and place at whim, from character to character, inside people's thoughts, feelings and motives."

and

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"Having total knowledge; knowing everything."

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]and for Free Will:
"[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Freedom of self determination and action independent of external causes."

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Omniscient (1st definition particularly) describes God very well to me.

Cheers,
Digit
[/SIZE]

 

[elcapitan]

Which future? *headdesk*

You still think there is only one possible one and that is limited by the fact that God already KNOWS it and as such our free will is simply an illusion.

What if there are an infinite amount of possible futures, all dictated by our free will to choose and do as we wish. That appears to me, how it is now. Sans God.

Now add in the fact (theoretical or otherwise) that God exists and God knows about all of these infinitely possible futures. What does that change?

Nothing.

It simply means He knows about them. He has knowledge. He is omniscient. That doesn't mean we suddenly don't have choice, or free will, it simply means God is omniscient and is aware of every single possible outcome.

Omniscience is not just knowledge of every possible outcome, omniscience is the knowledge of which outcome will happen. If God doesn't know which one will happen, He is not omniscient.

 

[sentipente]

Since we will never get God's opinion on this matter we need to ask whether that level of omniscience is necessary for one to be the Ruler of the Universe.

 

[sentipente]

It is interesting that we are having a heated discussion over a label that we have applied yet speaking as if God claimed it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ok, she predicts it.

God however knows. That knowledge and your choice are not mutually exclusive. I don't see why you would think they were.

Because free will necessitates the existance of choices, of options, of probabalistic outcomes, and omniscience negates the possibility of any action besides that which the omniscience predicts will occur.
It predicts I pick box A, so how can I pick box B?

We are given free will to choose, and nothing in this world hinders our choice except us and our makeup. Without having to rewrite another post I made, if you want to know how I view time, God and our free will have a gander here. It's long though, just FYI. It's not really on topic of your question, yet I reconcile an all powerful God with our free will as explained there. Maybe it helps.

Omnipotence is subtly different from omniscience.
I'll read your post tomorrow; it is quite late here.

 

[elcapitan]

Since we will never get God's opinion on this matter we need to ask whether that level of omniscience is necessary for one to be the Ruler of the Universe.

Hold on a second there.

First of all, I will agree with Digit's definition of omniscience: "having total knowledge; knowing everything". There cannot be something an omniscient being does not know, because then the being would no longer be omniscient.

Thus, it doesn't make sense to ask about "levels of omniscience"-- a being is either omniscient or is not.

Second of all, it isn't necessary that an omniscient being is ruler of the universe, but most who believe in an omniscient being believe He is. Likewise, I don't think that the ruler of the universe would have to be omniscient. (at least not for the purpose of this thread)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is their any way to answer your predesigned justification for your arguement and not justify your arguement?

Yes: give a refutation.

thats the problem with these cutesy so called academic scenarios, they are inherently designed to entrap the one answering the question into giving the one posing the question the answer that their non omniscient minds can fathom.

Please, explain how my scenario does this.

if the only answer that can be given are predetermined by you, then the one who replies to your scenario is denied free will, because the replies you designed, and provided will only fit in your carefully arranged scenario,

I merely gave the scenario and the only two possible outcomes. It is a thought experiment, nothing more.

I find it puzzling someone that is such a fan of science would come up with such a decidedly slanted, and preconcieved "theory"

At this point, I am wondering if you are talking to me at all: I gave no theory.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It appears to me that the problem in this discussion is that the two focal terms, omniscient and free will, have not been adequately defined. It seems both sides are talking past each other increasing their post count but adding nothing to the body of knowledge.

On the contrary, we have agreed, more or less, on definitions: omniscience is complete knowledge (or, nothing is unknown, all is known). Free will is the ability or capacity to make choices.

Since we will never get God's opinion on this matter we need to ask whether that level of omniscience is necessary for one to be the Ruler of the Universe.

Omniscience is omniscience: it does not come in levels.

It is interesting that we are having a heated discussion over a label that we have applied yet speaking as if God claimed it.

We agree, for the most part, on what omniscience is. The big question is: can it coexist with free will?
Also, read the OP: the word 'God' is a placehold for 'the omniscient'. The omniscient needen't be a deity (though one could argue that any omni- qualifies one for deityhood... a topic for another time, perhaps).

Anyway, I do not use God in any theological sense. It's just a conveniant word.

 

[sentipente]

Hold on a second there.

First of all, I will agree with Digit's definition of omniscience: "having total knowledge; knowing everything". There cannot be something an omniscient being does not know, because then the being would no longer be omniscient.

Thus, it doesn't make sense to ask about "levels of omniscience"-- a being is either omniscient or is not.

Second of all, it isn't necessary that an omniscient being is ruler of the universe, but most who believe in an omniscient being believe He is. Likewise, I don't think that the ruler of the universe would have to be omniscient.

Now we are getting somewhere.

 

[Digit]

Just read an interesting definition of free will which says that it is actually all the will of God. So perhaps our definitions are incorrect, perhaps it is actually the illusion of free will and regardless, everything that happens is actually the will of God afterall.

Actually after a little reading I'm pretty happy with the way I think about it and in addition there is another view, which I also like:
====

Question: "How does God's sovereignty work together with free will?"

Answer: It is impossible for us to fully understand the relationship between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. Only God truly knows how that two work together. Scripture is clear that God knows the future (Matthew 6:8; Psalm 139:1-4) and is sovereignly in control of all things (Colossians 1:16-17; Daniel 4:35). The Bible also says that we have a free will. God does not force us or cause us to do anything (James 1:13-14). We are completely responsible for our own actions (Romans 3:19; 6:23; 9:19-21). How these facts work together is impossible for a finite mind to comprehend (Romans 11:33-36).

People often take one of two extremes in regards to this question. Some emphasize the sovereignty of God to the point that human beings are little more than robots simply doing what they have been sovereignly programmed to do. Others emphasize free will to the point of God not having complete control and/or knowledge of all things. Neither of these positions are Biblical. Again, though, in this life we will never be able to fully understand how God’s sovereignty and man’s free will work together.

What are we to do then? First, we are to trust in the Lord, knowing that He is in control (Proverbs 3:5-6). God’s sovereignty is supposed to be a comfort to us, not an issue to be concerned about or debate over. Second, we are to live our lives, making wise decisions in accordance with God’s Word (2 Timothy 3:16-17; James 1:5). There will be no excuses before God for why we chose to disobey Him. We will have no one to blame but ourselves for our sin. Last but not least, we are to worship the Lord, praising Him that He is so wonderful, infinite, powerful, full of grace and mercy - and - sovereign.

====
I know God has a plan for each of us and it's our free will to do as we please that interferes with that plan and causes us to choose a different future for ourselves. If God is omniscient, then He knows this. I'm not going to lose sleep over something so beyond my scope, when there are much smaller things like rising from the dead, walking on water and water to blood to reason out no?

Cheers,
Digit

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Just read an interesting definition of free will which says that it is actually all the will of God. So perhaps our definitions are incorrect, perhaps it is actually the illusion of free will and regardless, everything that happens is actually the will of God afterall.

To be fair, this conclusion is one of the two given in my OP.

 

[chris777]

Yes: give a refutation.

you are attempting to define the undefinable.

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.

God knows the outcome of your choice before you make it, so your asking the question of can you choose B is irelevant because you have already chosen A yet you are unaware of this, this does not automatically mean you don't have free will.

Please, explain how my scenario does this.

this whole scenario is designed with your own pre conceived intent to discredit God, You do not leave the test open ended, as you provide the answers to the senarios and limit the answers by enclosing it in a vacume, the room, and bracket the outcome to encompass only 1 of 2 outcomes, both of which conveniently fit your world view.

I merely gave the scenario and the only two possible outcomes. It is a thought experiment, nothing more.

its not a thought experiment its your own propaganda, because omnicence and free will are apparently incomprehensible to you, so you have provided your own narrow explanation to frame your own agenda with.

At this point, I am wondering if you are talking to me at all: I gave no theory

ahh so then are you saying that the 2 outcomes you provided are the absolute only possible ways of interpreting the omnicence of God, and the free will of man?

the title of the thread is
"Why a true omniscient cannot coexist with true free will."This is your attempt to define omnicence and free will and frame them in such a way that you portray them as impossible and irreconcilable.

 

[elcapitan]

you are attempting to define the undefinable.

What is undefinable? He's already given definitions for omniscience and free will.

God knows the outcome of your choice before you make it, so your asking the question of can you choose B is irelevant because you have already chosen A yet you are unaware of this, this does not automatically mean you don't have free will.

One of the premises of the thought experiment is that you haven't chosen a box yet. The question of whether you can choose box B still stands.

this whole scenario is designed with your own pre conceived intent to discredit God, You do not leave the test open ended, as you provide the answers to the senarios and limit the answers by enclosing it in a vacume, the room, and bracket the outcome to encompass only 1 of 2 outcomes, both of which conveniently fit your world view.

So?

its not a thought experiment its your own propaganda, because omnicence and free will are apparently incomprehensible to you, so you have provided your own narrow explanation to frame your own agenda with.

Well, he's already defined both omniscience and free will, so it's safe to say that they aren't incomprehensible.

ahh so then are you saying that the 2 outcomes you provided are the absolute only possible ways of interpreting the omnicence of God, and the free will of man?

They are in that thought experiment.

the title of the thread is
"Why a true omniscient cannot coexist with true free will."This is your attempt to define omnicence and free will and frame them in such a way that you portray them as impossible and irreconcilable.

If you have other definitions that make sense, I'd love to hear them.

 

[Digit]

Actually after reading some more about this, and also about Biblical backing (here if anyone is interested) for the omniscient God my post still stands and in addition, the only thing that may be an issue is free will yet after some more reading I don't find any problem with it. God doesn't interfere with our lives, He doesn't stop us doing things that we would otherwise do, he doesn't disconnect my internet to stop me sending an angry forum post filled with hatred or disable my DVD player when trying to watch an adult film. We are free to choose.

By free will and the definition I gave earlier, we are free to choose what we do, when we do it. Without any interferance from God. God waking me up early in my theoretical scenario doesn't affect my freedom to make choices, it simply saves my life. I intended to go to go to work one way or another, I had already made the choice. Afterall, that is perfectly in line with what is said about God in the Bible, that He wants what is best for us, and that is more than just me being alive, it's my familys feelings and so on. I can still choose to go to work or not too, but God knows what my choice will be. Again that doesn't eliminate my freedom to actively make that choice, it simply puts the knowledge of it, and it's outcome in God's hands.

So... what's the problem?

Cheers,
Digit

 

[Wiccan_Child]

you are attempting to define the undefinable.

I don't believe I have. Is it the box that you see as undefinable?

God knows the outcome of your choice before you make it, so your asking the question of can you choose B is irelevant because you have already chosen A yet you are unaware of this, this does not automatically mean you don't have free will.

No: I am not simply unaware of my decision, I haven't made it yet.
Perhaps it is more clear to put it this way: God knew I would pick box A at the dawn of humanity. I was a myriad of atoms that would eventually coalesce as a sperm and an egg; at that time, I had made no decision.

this whole scenario is designed with your own pre conceived intent to discredit God,

As I have stated on multiple occasions (and as you chose to omit in your quote):
The word ['God'] is only a placeholder for 'the omniscient'. Don't read too much theology from this

You do not leave the test open ended, as you provide the answers to the senarios and limit the answers by enclosing it in a vacume, the room, and bracket the outcome to encompass only 1 of 2 outcomes, both of which conveniently fit your world view.

I gave the scenario. I gave the only two outcomes I could see.
If you see any outcome other than picking box A or box B, please, give them.
Saying 'Pick no box / both boxes' gives the same result as just picking box B: God did not anticipate it, and so in not omniscient.

its not a thought experiment its your own propaganda, because omnicence and free will are apparently incomprehensible to you, so you have provided your own narrow explanation to frame your own agenda with.

How trite. Splashing conspiracy-theory over an argument does not make a refutation.
What is my propaganda?
What is my agenda?
Where have I implied an incomprehension of omniscience? Of free will?

ahh so then are you saying that the 2 outcomes you provided are the absolute only possible ways of interpreting the omnicence of God, and the free will of man?

Yes, that is what I am saying. This entire thread is devoted to discussing my scenario and it's conclusions. Do you have an actual objection, or do you wish to keep telling me how I don't comprehend this, have an agenda against that?

the title of the thread is
"Why a true omniscient cannot coexist with true free will."This is your attempt to define omnicence and free will and frame them in such a way that you portray them as impossible and irreconcilable.

Notice that I defined neither omniscience nor free will in my opening post.
But you are, more or less, correct: this thread begun with what I perceived to be the contradiction that arises when one assumes a true omniscience and true free will.

 

[chris777]

But you are, more or less, correct: this thread begun with what I perceived to be the contradiction that arises when one assumes a true omniscience and true free will.

Thats my point

either answer you are given "proves" your statement, whether or not it is actually true in reality. In your construct, given your parameters your artificial outcome will always come out the way you had it planned thus supporting the conclusion you have predefined.

your supposition predicates your given outcomes.

when in reality you could argue and debate the issue and toss outcome out until you are sick, but you still choose a, the thin is God knew you would choose it, its not that you lack free will, its that you do not know the future , and he does, you have the potential to choose either, but in the end you can only choose one, you do not know the outcome, but he does.

but the way you frame the parameters and the interpretation of the outcome you are predisposing an artificial explanation of the outcome.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Thats my point

either answer you are given "proves" your statement, whether or not it is actually true in reality.

If you disagree with my conclusion, say so, and explain the flaw.

In your construct, given your parameters your artificial outcome will always come out the way you had it planned thus supporting the conclusion you have predefined.

For the third time: I only gave what I saw as the solutions to the scenario. If you see alternate 'endings', please, give them. If you disagree with the conclusions drawn from the endings, please, explain.

you still choose a, the thin is God knew you would choose it, its not that you lack free will, its that you do not know the future , and he does, you have the potential to choose either, but in the end you can only choose one, you do not know the outcome, but he does.

The existance of such knowledge belies any possibility for an alternative outcome. How can we have free will if there is only one possible outcome?

 

[chris777]

If you disagree with my conclusion, say so, and explain the flaw.

maby you should re read my post.

For the third time: I only gave what I saw as the solutions to the scenario. If you see alternate 'endings', please, give them. If you disagree with the conclusions drawn from the endings, please, explain.

I did

The existance of such knowledge belies any possibility for an alternative outcome. How can we have free will if there is only one possible outcome?

from the perspective of God himself yes, but from yours or mine no

 

[Wiccan_Child]

from the perspective of God himself yes, but from yours or mine no

Which is one of my conclusions: that free will is an illusion when an omniscient exists.