Why a true omniscient cannot coexist with true free will.

[Wiccan_Child]

Quantum mechanics speculates that energy must exist in variety of phases which doesn't make sense,

The speculation doesn't make sense, or the phases themselves?

and places, ergo a particle can either point A, or point C, but never point B.

Why not point B? Why not the halfway point between A and C, etc?

The only way that this really makes sense is if there an infinite number of universes in point B is in fact occupied. That's really the gist of it.

Not quite. Quantum mechanics is inherently probabalistic, but not in the sense you're conveying.

The problem with the foreknowledge arguement is that we are assuming that thre is a fore there is not in this case, and as all our logic is bound by time, and physics ironically enough, it is not suited or designed to compute or study a being beyond it.

Logic is not bound by time. How else could we have meaningful discussions about timelessness? Or about scenarios where time has not been defined?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Actually mathematical language is a flawed system that was created to explain physics hence the famous: "Mathematics where it applies to reality is uncertain, and where it is certain does not apply to reality."

By all means, demonstrate how mathematical language is flawed. As an applied mathematician, you can understand how this would interest me.

 

[Teufelhund]

Timelessness is characterised by the abscence of time, the same way we do not really understand nothing we characterize it by being a spot which does not have something. You cannot have be halfway between Quantum States, that's the point of Quantum physics is that particles tended to vary in phases which doesn't make sense unless Quantum physics is applied, I haven't physics so I apologize if my terminology is rusty, but regardlessly that's the idea. Now I do not think that this at all interferes with the idea of a omniscient God, in fact if anything it suggests it. True free will is I think an illusion at best. But I do not think that God decides the fate of men, in that we choose our own, which is difficult to explain, but you would not choose box B in your initial scenario not because God has regulated that you chose A, but in a timeless sense you already have, do you see?

 

[Teufelhund]

I was quoting Einstein, I myself have not seen it, but Einstein who is I think a more accomplished student of Mathematics than likely you are, maybe not I don't know, did not feel mathematics was certain or perfect. Again he may have been wrong but I'll take his word over yours.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Timelessness is characterised by the abscence of time, the same way we do not really understand nothing we characterize it by being a spot which does not have something.

A point in space with no thing in it is not 'nothing', in the sense analogous to timelessness.

You cannot have be halfway between Quantum States, that's the point of Quantum physics is that particles tended to vary in phases which doesn't make sense unless Quantum physics is applied, I haven't physics so I apologize if my terminology is rusty, but regardlessly that's the idea

Plank's hypothesis was that energy comes in discrete quanta, as opposed to a spectrum as hypothesised by previous physicists. That is the long and the short of it.
However, not all system have discrete energy levels; I believe you are overextending some of the principles of QM to all systems. Continuous probability does exist in quantum mechanical systems.
In any case, I still don't see where the third box came from.

Now I do not think that this at all interferes with the idea of a omniscient God, in fact if anything it suggests it.

Do explain.

True free will is I think an illusion at best.

Agreed.

But I do not think that God decides the fate of men, in that we choose our own, which is difficult to explain, but you would not choose box B in your initial scenario not because God has regulated that you chose A, but in a timeless sense you already have, do you see?

No. If free will is an illusion, how can we choose anything?

I was quoting Einstein, I myself have not seen it, but Einstein who is I think a more accomplished student of Mathematics than likely you are, maybe not I don't know, did not feel mathematics was certain or perfect. Again he may have been wrong but I'll take his word over yours.

As much as I admire Einstein, I will not believe something just because he believed it. Even Einstein was against appeals to authority.
So, appart from Einstein's quotation, do you have any reason for believing that mathematical language is flawed?

And for the record, I believe Einstein was talking of the asumptions and omissions we make when modelling real-world systems ('assume it's in a vacuum', for instance).

 

[Teufelhund]

I am saying that free will in the context of timelessness is an illusion as say time itself would have to be. I think that in this case Einstein's quote is entirely appropriate as we are talking about something that is entirely beyond the scope of mathematics, or physics, or any system which we have designed to cope with our part of the real world. The third box, was nonexistant, I think, I was tired, the idea was that you would have in some way chosen both boxes in all the infinite universes that exist. What I was getting to is that free will exists in time, you can choose box A or B completely and entirely on your own, however out of time, you can't because you will, are choosing, and already have chosen. So free will exists as part of material existence, but not in the metaphorical long run.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I am saying that free will in the context of timelessness is an illusion as say time itself would have to be. I think that in this case Einstein's quote is entirely appropriate as we are talking about something that is entirely beyond the scope of mathematics, or physics, or any system which we have designed to cope with our part of the real world.

I don't see how mathematics is ill-equipped to deal with timeless scenarios. Indeed, it is the introduction of a temporal variable that complicates things.

The third box, was nonexistant, I think, I was tired, the idea was that you would have in some way chosen both boxes in all the infinite universes that exist. What I was getting to is that free will exists in time, you can choose box A or B completely and entirely on your own, however out of time, you can't because you will, are choosing, and already have chosen. So free will exists as part of material existence, but not in the metaphorical long run.

Then you agree: free will is an illusion held by those who are 'in' time.

 

[Gukkor]

Then you agree: free will is an illusion held by those who are 'in' time.

Is it not possible that free will exists inside of time but not outside of it (as opposed to not existing at all and simply appearing to exist in time) ?

 

[chaz345]

Then you agree: free will is an illusion held by those who are 'in' time.

This only holds if "outside of time" is superior to or is above or is more real then being "inside" time. Which mode of being is the real one, being inside time or being outside it?

 

[BloodwashedPilgrim]

Key things to remember/realize:

1. The Judeo-Christian God is eternal (exists outside of time).

(Gen. 21:33, Deut. 33:27, 1 Chr. 16:36, Psa. 41:13, Psa. 90:2, Psa. 93:2, Psa. 100:5, Isa. 9:6, Isa. 40:28, Jer. 10:10, Rom. 1:20-21, Rom 16:26, 1 Tim. 1:17, Heb. 9:14)

2. The Judeo-Christian God is omnipresent (exists outside of space).

(1 Ki. 8:27, Psa. 139:3, 7-10, Pro 15:3, Jer. 23:23-24, Isa. 57:15, Matt. 18:20, Matt. 28:20, Acts 17:24-28, Eph. 1:22-23)

3. The Judeo-Christian God is omniscient (all knowing).

(1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Chron. 28:9, 17; Job 37:16; Psa. 139:1-4; Isa. 41:22-23; 42:9; 44:7; Jer. 17:10)

So, when this discourse is to discuss the omniscience of the Judeo-Christian Triune Godhead these things must all be understood.

The question was posed, why must God exist outside of time and space?

The answer is because those are His attributes.

Thus, the omniscient Being of the Judeo-Christian God is not only omniscient, but also omnipresent and eternal.

If you are addressing the ability of a finite creature also being omniscient that is a different discussion altogether.

However, as it stands the Judeo-Christian God is not only omniscient, but also infinite, eternal and omnipresent, and those must be reckoned in the understanding of His omniscience, especially as it relates to us and our finiteness.

Much love in Christ.

 

[BloodwashedPilgrim]

You cannot confine the Creator to the same standards as the created.

God is transcendent, entirely distinct from and different than the universe, as the carpenter is distinct from the bench.

-Robert Bowman

1. Separate from the world: Isa. 40:22; Acts 17:24
2. Contrasted with the world: Psa. 102:25-27; 1 John 2:15-17
3. Created the world: Gen. 1:1; Psa. 33:6; 102:25; Isa. 42:5; 44:24; John 1:3; Rom. 11:36; Heb. 1:2; 11:3

You cannot say that God's "reality" is ours. The concept of a distinct, absolute and objective reality as it pertains to creation and our world is a completely separate issue from us having the "same reality" as God.

God is not confined in any amount by the laws He created over this universe.

God is not bound by physics or mathematics.

God is not bound by time or space.

God is not bound by anything that we as humans are, thus His "reality" is obviously and blatantly different than ours.

His perspective is not only different, but much higher than ours.

However, just because we do not have God's perspective or exist in His essence of reality, does not mean that we do not have a "true" reality in which we dwell, based upon the structures and systems in which He orderly created all His creation (not just limited to our universe).

You cannot expect the Potter to be bound by the same things as the clay. That is irrational.

So again, if we are discussing the Judeo-Christian God then you must remember these things. God is the Creator, not the created, that does not mean that we exist in mere facades, but rather that we are bound by laws that do not bind God, but were instead created by God and are kept in place by God.

Much love in Christ.

 

[sentipente]

If you hit the carpenter and the bench with a hammer will the effect be different?

 

[BloodwashedPilgrim]

If you hit the carpenter and the bench with a hammer will the effect be different?

There are several differences between hitting the carpenter and the bench. The primary one being the carpenter's ability to defend himself, and not allow the hammer to hit him. However, I will concede that the analogy is not perfect, simply metaphorical. It is to help finite minds grasp attributes of infinity (something that is not truly possible). So, if you want to say that the metaphor is lacking, go right ahead. I concede and you win, the metaphor is lacking. That, however, has no bearing on the principle.

Much love in Christ.

 

[re:pit]

<snip>

Very good answer.

God can defy logic and common sense, you might not be able to comprehend what he does, or what he can do. Just because you cannot comprehend it doesn't mean he can't do it.
Ultimately this premise can end many theological arguments. God by definition is what he says he is, if he says he is fair, and yet he is done something that you consider unfair, then that is a problem with your definition of fairness, not a problem with God. God is perfect.

 

[sentipente]

Very good answer.

God can defy logic and common sense, you might not be able to comprehend what he does, or what he can do.

As long as you recognize that the fact that men say that God did something does not mean that God really did it. Our use of logic may sometimes be faulty but God cannot defy logic. To do so would be to defy Himself because He created logic.

 

[JonF]

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

Knowledge in general isn’t a causal relation, this includes foreknowledge. Deist actually answered this pretty well about 400 years ago. There is a big difference between predication and causation.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

As long as you recognize that the fact that men say that God did something does not mean that God really did it. Our use of logic may sometimes be faulty but God cannot defy logic. To do so would be to defy Himself because He created logic.

Hmm... logic is merely a tool that for the most part is simple rules agreed on by man while depending on gifts God has given us. Gifts such as order, sentient thought, etc.
But I wouldn't say that for God to defy logic would be for Him to defy Himself... unless the god being referred to was what man refers to as logic. But... that line of thought might need a thread of its own.

I tend to keep things in perspective this way... how "logical" (by man's standard for the term) is it to have a man walk on water, heal a blind man with spit and dirt, to be resurrected by the power of God?

I will have to disagree with certain parts of the post.
Logic is just a tool with limits.
I don't see it as being able to capture the full nature of God or to be an authority over God.
I do not agree that God is limited to what man calls logic.

 

[Nadiine]

You cannot confine the Creator to the same standards as the created.

God is transcendent, entirely distinct from and different than the universe, as the carpenter is distinct from the bench.

-Robert Bowman

1. Separate from the world: Isa. 40:22; Acts 17:24
2. Contrasted with the world: Psa. 102:25-27; 1 John 2:15-17
3. Created the world: Gen. 1:1; Psa. 33:6; 102:25; Isa. 42:5; 44:24; John 1:3; Rom. 11:36; Heb. 1:2; 11:3

You cannot say that God's "reality" is ours. The concept of a distinct, absolute and objective reality as it pertains to creation and our world is a completely separate issue from us having the "same reality" as God.

God is not confined in any amount by the laws He created over this universe.

God is not bound by physics or mathematics.

God is not bound by time or space.

God is not bound by anything that we as humans are, thus His "reality" is obviously and blatantly different than ours.

His perspective is not only different, but much higher than ours.

However, just because we do not have God's perspective or exist in His essence of reality, does not mean that we do not have a "true" reality in which we dwell, based upon the structures and systems in which He orderly created all His creation (not just limited to our universe).

You cannot expect the Potter to be bound by the same things as the clay. That is irrational.

So again, if we are discussing the Judeo-Christian God then you must remember these things. God is the Creator, not the created, that does not mean that we exist in mere facades, but rather that we are bound by laws that do not bind God, but were instead created by God and are kept in place by God.

Much love in Christ.

Great points

I keep seeing this line of philosophy in people - attributing human constraints to God - as if God has to think like us and act like us, and we're HIS judge.

It's GOD that has the higher purpose, knowledge and understanding.
I like to use a simple analogy of a child being told by his parents at bedtime to go and brush his teeth.

Well, little Timmy has no idea why he needs to keep doing this irritating chore 2 times a day, just that he's told to keep doing it. Does he have to know why he has to do it for it to be the right thing to do?
Does he have to ENJOY doing it for it to be beneficial to him?
Timmy can't understand or know WHY - that his teeth will rot and he'll get serious health issues without brushing. He probly also wouldn't care cosmetically if his teeth turned yellow either.

It's only the Parents that fully realize why this is so important for him to continue to do.
I see God in this way as the wise "parent" and us as the child who needs to trust that God knows what's best and why.
= Faith.

 

[sentipente]

I tend to keep things in perspective this way... how "logical" (by man's standard for the term) is it to have a man walk on water, heal a blind man with spit and dirt, to be resurrected by the power of God?

I don't think you are discussion logic here. All the things you described are entirely logical. Logic enables us to move from a premise to a conclusion. How can it be illogical for the one who created water and surface tension to walk on it?

 

[Nadiine]

I do not agree that God is limited to what man calls logic.

Actually, it's not God who's limited by logic, but man who limits God by "logic" alone.
It takes some FAITH to accept the Lord. I use logic and reason both - but so do atheists who either refuse to or can't see things the way I do.

One accepts, one rejects with the same logic & reasoning tools.