Can free will exist in the same Universe as true prophecies and a God that knows the future?

[Sultan Of Swing]

*facepalm*
Until you understand what time is (as it is blatantly obvious you don't know) you won't get it. So tell me what you think time is and then we can see where we go from here in this debate.

I understand what you're saying.

In my view, when God created the universe, He was in the past, present and future. Time is not a limiting factor to God.

However, God merely had to cause one event, and this one event brought upon a progression of more events. This is time, a change in events. If time isn't a progression of events, then please correct me. God does not have to operate according to our perception of time, but time is a useful if not necessary occurrence when one is working with a series of events.

So, when God caused that first event, every proceeding event and everything was probably happening all at once for Him in some unimaginable way. However, the point is that there still exists a series of events. God could be on the outside looking in, but it doesn't change the possibility that He could let us have our own individual choices.

This is where the soul comes in, or at least the metaphysical nature of the soul. God ordained individuals with autonomy like Himself. So God is on the outside looking in on this mash-up of anything and everything, but this is just the physical realm. There is also the transcendence of time and space that exists for our souls, and allows us to make certain decisions not affected by what happens in the physical.

So while God made these initial conditions and thus you would think He in turn designed every aspect of the universe, there is also the individuality and autonomy of our own souls which can affect this universe.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I understand what you're saying.

In my view, when God created the universe, He was in the past, present and future. Time is not a limiting factor to God.

However, God merely had to cause one event, and this one event brought upon a progression of more events. This is time, a change in events. If time isn't a progression of events, then please correct me. God does not have to operate according to our perception of time, but time is a useful if not necessary occurrence when one is working with a series of events.

So, when God caused that first event, every proceeding event and everything was probably happening all at once for Him in some unimaginable way. However, the point is that there still exists a series of events. God could be on the outside looking in, but it doesn't change the possibility that He could let us have our own individual choices.

This is where the soul comes in, or at least the metaphysical nature of the soul. God ordained individuals with autonomy like Himself. So God is on the outside looking in on this mash-up of anything and everything, but this is just the physical realm. There is also the transcendence of time and space that exists for our souls, and allows us to make certain decisions not affected by what happens in the physical.

So while God made these initial conditions and thus you would think He in turn designed every aspect of the universe, there is also the individuality and autonomy of our own souls which can affect this universe.

It still doesn't matter. Can god see the future? Can god know exactly what will happen if he makes the universe at these exact specifications?

Does god know what you will do tomorrow? If so that means there is a pre-destined future for you. If you have a pre-destined future then it means you don't have the free will to choose an alternate path. However it would feel at the time that you did have control when in reality you didn't.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

More importantly how can anything cause the event before there is time - that is a nonsensical proposition; nothing can cause time to come into being, because causation itself infers a prior temporal reference.

Indeed it could be argued that even discounting causation, the concept of a 'beginning' of time is nonsensical.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

More importantly how can anything cause the event before there is time - that is a nonsensical proposition; nothing can cause time to come into being, because causation itself infers a prior temporal reference.

Indeed it could be argued that even discounting causation, the concept of a 'beginning' of time is nonsensical.

thats why a lot of time models are circular.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

More importantly how can anything cause the event before there is time - that is a nonsensical proposition; nothing can cause time to come into being, because causation itself infers a prior temporal reference.

Indeed it could be argued that even discounting causation, the concept of a 'beginning' of time is nonsensical.

Unless causation is simultaneous with the beginning. So the moment an 'action' happened, time began.

There was no 'before' time, but potentially something that is beyond/transcends it? And so when this being decides to 'do' something, in a spatial/temporal sense, time has begun.

 

[Willamena]

Not sure why you think it means God had to design/fashion every detail of it from beginning to end...

Because of what it means to know. Knowledge is of actual things.

If God knows the future and what you will do tomorrow, then it is an actual event. It will happen just the way it is known. The alternative is that it is not actual, but potential. Free will lies in the potential to have done otherwise.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

It still doesn't matter. Can god see the future? Can god know exactly what will happen if he makes the universe at these exact specifications?

Does god know what you will do tomorrow? If so that means there is a pre-destined future for you. If you have a pre-destined future then it means you don't have the free will to choose an alternate path. However it would feel at the time that you did have control when in reality you didn't.

You said yourself that time is just perception.

God isn't in the now looking into the future. He is everywhere, past and future.

Like I said before, God's knowledge of our choices is just that; knowledge of OUR choices. His knowledge of our choices is based on our choices. Our choices are not based on His knowledge.

Once again you can compare it to memory. If I have a memory of someone doing something, is their free will impaired because I remember them doing it? We can apply this same principle to God, because He isn't stuck in the 'now' looking into the future, but sort of 'remembers' everything because He is in the past, present and future.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Because of what it means to know. Knowledge is of actual things.

If God knows the future and what you will do tomorrow, then it is an actual event. It will happen just the way it is known. The alternative is that it is not actual, but potential. Free will lies in the potential to have done otherwise.

But who is it that actualised the potentiality? Us. God simply knows what we actualise. Once again God's knowledge is based on our choices. Our choices aren't based on God's knowledge.

 

[Willamena]

But who is it that actualised the potentiality? Us.

Potentiality isn't what gets actualized, rather it is one of two states that are possible in any moment: a thing is either potential if it could happen, or actual if it has. The determinant (of "has happened") is a judgement of the truth of the thing.

One of two states is possible in any moment because of the model of conscious being that we have: our knowledge is of the world, but not actually the world, and needs to be justified (judged) if it is to be confirmed as the world.

To say we actualize potentiality is to claim some control over truth. So, is free will a power we have to bring a true world into being? Or is that a godly power?

Can this fit into your lovely image of causation simultaneous with beginnings?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Unless causation is simultaneous with the beginning. So the moment an 'action' happened, time began.

There was no 'before' time, but potentially something that is beyond/transcends it? And so when this being decides to 'do' something, in a spatial/temporal sense, time has begun.

So the cause is simultaneous to the effect huh? Of course... all we have to do is pretend that nothing we know about cause and effect is true then hey no problem. Cause comes BEFORE effect, and as I alluded to earlier even if we were to ignore cause - the concept of change itself implies at least two temporal references (before and after change) the concept as you were alluding to earlier was a change in which there is only one temporal reference 'the beginning of time' and a reference preceding this, however, preceding/before etc denotes a TEMPORAL relationship.

As you noted you cannot before time existed and have that statement make sense, as 'before' is a temporal term; it is entirely possible that there is a different scope of time (change in a given scope of existence) which while most likely inclusive of our own, would quite possibly have the capability of change separate to our scope (i.e. time would likely progress normally in that other scope, yet could potentially be slowed down or stopped within our own to some extent - I do not believe it could be hastened in comparison to the containing superscope though I am unsure of this from a logical perspective.), this would potentially allow the capability to create time/universes etc (thought would likely suggest that the creation of our scope of time would constitute a change in the state of that scope of time and thus would likely be a subscope of the containing superscope). However, assuming any other scopes of time would merely mean that the same questions we ask about the nature and 'beginning of time' would then be applicable to other scopes of time/existence, in which case one must ask why the assumption that our scope of time would have a beginning and not the other scope of time might occur - it is an assumption that merely results in regress without any attempt at providing an explanation.

In such a way 'god' could be outside of OUR time, but not time.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Potentiality isn't what gets actualized, rather it is one of two states that are possible in any moment: a thing is either potential if it could happen, or actual if it has. The determinant (of "has happened") is a judgement of the truth of the thing.

One of two states is possible in any moment because of the model of conscious being that we have: our knowledge is of the world, but not actually the world, and needs to be justified (judged) if it is to be confirmed as the world.

To say we actualize potentiality is to claim some control over truth. So, is free will a power we have to bring a true world into being? Or is that a godly power?

Can this fit into your lovely image of causation simultaneous with beginnings?

Okay, not sure I follow.

So would it make more sense if I had said it is us that brings something from a state of potentiality to a state of actuality, rather than saying we actualise potentiality?

And I suppose we do not really have the ability to know for sure whether something is truly actual or not. Was that what you were getting at?

But whether or not we ourselves can truly judge whether the world is actual or not shouldn't matter too much.

It's an interesting thought, and I may go as far as to say that like God, who transcends time and can 'do' things independently, so can we. This is the gift of the soul, in the metaphysical sense, and being made in the 'image of God'. Thus you could say it is indeed both a godly power and one that we possess, the ability to bring things into actuality independently of a pre-existing cause. The first cause that set all events into motion is not the only cause that determines what happens in the universe. We ourselves have the ability to affect things independently of those initial conditions due to the gift of our own personal agency.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

So the cause is simultaneous to the effect huh? Of course... all we have to do is pretend that nothing we know about cause and effect is true then hey no problem.

Cause comes BEFORE effect, and as I alluded to earlier even if we were to ignore cause - the concept of change itself implies at least two temporal references (before and after change) the concept as you were alluding to earlier was a change in which there is only one temporal reference 'the beginning of time' and a reference preceding this, however, preceding/before etc denotes a TEMPORAL relationship.

As you noted you cannot before time existed and have that statement make sense, as 'before' is a temporal term; it is entirely possible that there is a parallel scope of time (change in a given scope of existence) separate to our own, this would potentially allow the capability to create time/universes etc (thought would likely suggest that the creation of our scope of time would constitute a change in the state of that scope of time and thus would likely be a subscope of the containing superscope). However, assuming any other scopes of time would merely mean that the same questions we ask about the nature and 'beginning of time' would then be applicable to other scopes of time/existence, in which case one must ask why the assumption that our scope of time would have a beginning and not the other scope of time might occur - it is an assumption that merely results in regress without any attempt at providing an explanation.

Does the wave function collapse after I observe it or at the same time? Just wondering, I'm not sure myself, but I thought that might be an example of simultaneous causation.

Or a ball lying on a cushion. Isn't the effect of the indentation on the cushion happening at the same time as the cause; the lead ball?

And a different 'scope' of time isn't necessary in this theoretical area beyond time. This scope of time is only necessary if change is present within this area. If change is not present, then time is not necessary.

However, if the thing which resides in this area decides to 'do' something, then we have the creation of a scope of time, as you call it. Now, naturally something cannot be 'changeless' and timeless and then just go out and cause something to happen naturally, because it would require a cause. Unless, it had personal agency, a mind of its own, and was able to choose to 'do' something? This action is simultaneous to the beginning of time.

 

[Willamena]

Okay, not sure I follow.

So would it make more sense if I had said it is us that brings something from a state of potentiality to a state of actuality, rather than saying we actualise potentiality?

That's essentially what you said before: that free will is the power to bring about a true world.

And I suppose we do not really have the ability to know for sure whether something is truly actual or not. Was that what you were getting at?

! We seem to be at opposite poles, so nevermind.

The first cause that set all events into motion is not the only cause that determines what happens in the universe. We ourselves have the ability to affect things independently of those initial conditions due to the gift of our own personal agency.

Fair enough.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Does the wave function collapse after I observe it or at the same time? Just wondering, I'm not sure myself, but I thought that might be an example of simultaneous causation.

Collapse occurs after interaction with the observer - whether or not the observation IS that interaction or merely part of that interaction is the issue. Perhaps (I am unsure) the interaction may be simultaneous with the collapse or there may be a temporal delay (between start of interaction and observation) depending on the nature of the observer.

But in either case, the observer itself changed as did the wave function, both result from the interaction and thus we have temporal states - some set of states before the interaction, some set of states during the interaction and some set of states after the interaction. Precisely where in this set of states you wish to label 'observation' and where 'collapse' I am unsure, nor the duration of the temporal frame you wish to label as such; indeed I do not think we currently know (again, I am unclear on this). However, the interaction with the observer would cause the collapse, not the observation itself which is but part of that interaction.

Or a ball lying on a cushion. Isn't the effect of the indentation on the cushion happening at the same time as the cause; the lead ball?

No actually when you PLACE the lead ball on the cushion, there is a very brief time, when there is no indentation - the indentation is formed when the gravitational pull on the iron ball converts to kinetic energy moving it downwards, dislodging or compressing sufficient material below it to form a depression.

And a different 'scope' of time isn't necessary in this theoretical area beyond time. This scope of time is only necessary if change is present within this area. If change is not present, then time is not necessary.

However, if the thing which resides in this area decides to 'do' something, then we have the creation of a scope of time, as you call it. Now, naturally something cannot be 'changeless' and timeless and then just go out and cause something to happen naturally, because it would require a cause. Unless, it had personal agency, a mind of its own, and was able to choose to 'do' something? This action is simultaneous to the beginning of time.

A mind requires the capacity for changes in state in order to think, thus this already assumes time; that 'before time' there was something capable of change of thought of agency is to assert there was time 'before time'.

It is simply nonsensical without asserting that nothing we know of causality is correct AND (not or) that there existed something which could do nothing (UTTERLY impotent) lacking the capacity to do anything, to think anything - completely and utterly inert; yet at the same nontime created the capacity for change itself...

We are getting off topic here... I created a thread quite a while back about this issue... http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/133438-supernatural-beginning-time.html

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You said yourself that time is just perception.

God isn't in the now looking into the future. He is everywhere, past and future.

Like I said before, God's knowledge of our choices is just that; knowledge of OUR choices. His knowledge of our choices is based on our choices. Our choices are not based on His knowledge.

Once again you can compare it to memory. If I have a memory of someone doing something, is their free will impaired because I remember them doing it? We can apply this same principle to God, because He isn't stuck in the 'now' looking into the future, but sort of 'remembers' everything because He is in the past, present and future.

If all he has is "knowledge" of our choices its fine and dandy...IF he didn't create the universe. However when he created the universe he did so in a way with exact knowledge of what we will ultimatly do.

Either the above is true or god is not omnipotent. There is no denying that. If god made the universe KNOWING what will happen...how is that free will for ourselves?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

If all he has is "knowledge" of our choices its fine and dandy...IF he didn't create the universe. However when he created the universe he did so in a way with exact knowledge of what we will ultimatly do.

Either the above is true or god is not omnipotent. There is no denying that. If god made the universe KNOWING what will happen...how is that free will for ourselves?

If God is omnipotent, is it beyond His power to make the universe but still leave it open for choice?

Once again, you're looking at it as if the initial conditions of the universe were such that all our actions had been decided.

This is where the soul comes in and our autonomy. God gave us perfect autonomy, and we can choose to reject Him or not. This is the gift of the soul, of free will. Autonomy beyond our material realm.

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

"I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things not yet done...I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it."

 

[michel]

If God (if you accept that there is one) knows the future - and he could know all the potential futures depending on the choices made by individuals at each turn, yes...

He (God) would make a great chess player if that is the case!:bow: