Can God be suprised?

[kreeden]

A choice implies a possibility that one can go along at least 2 different paths. Omniscience implies that a decision can be known before it is made. If the outcome of the choice is known before it is made then the possibility of the 2nd path is stripped away (in order to make it knowledge), thereby rendering it no longer a choice.

True , to a point . One may have two or more choices . One may even know which would be the better of the two . But that doesn't mean that a person will take the better choice . And that is where free will comes in . Knowing what could happen , and know what shall happen , doesn't make it happen . Even knowing what is likely to happpen leaves a chance for something else to happen .

A decision can be known before it is made . But one can still explore the possibilities . And one can find one of these possibilities interesting enough to chance their decision . And even if we don't , the possibility was / is still there .

 

[michel]

True , to a point . One may have two or more choices . One may even know which would be the better of the two . But that doesn't mean that a person will take the better choice . And that is where free will comes in . Knowing what could happen , and know what shall happen , doesn't make it happen . Even knowing what is likely to happpen leaves a chance for something else to happen .

A decision can be known before it is made . But one can still explore the possibilities . And one can find one of these possibilities interesting enough to chance their decision . And even if we don't , the possibility was / is still there .

Exactly my point, as far as I can see.

 

[kreeden]

Exactly my point, as far as I can see.

Yes , I do believe that it is ....

 

[Fluffy]

But for the sake of refuting your logic, Fluffy, to my mind a case can be made for free will with omniscience; imagine walking into a very big castle. You go in through the front doors. you then have a choice of various doors to open - each one of which has a room behind it. Forsake of the argument, the individual has got the free will to go through any door of his choice - but the rooms still exist even though he chooses one over the others. Does that make sense; I see it as Logic.

Okay but there are 2 factors which can be known here. Both need to be known in order for it to qualify as omniscience. One of those is knowing all of the possibilities, or rooms. The other is knowing which room will be chosen. Such foreknowledge is not present in the above scenario and so it is not omniscience.

I do not deny that God can know the first without damaging free will. However, this is not omniscience and therefore does not reconcile omniscience with free will. Omniscience requires both the former and latter knowledge and it is the latter than nullifies free will. Can you factor that into your scenario without loosing free will?

I will say it a different way. In order for God to qualify as omniscient, he must know the decision you will make whenever a choice occurs. He also must know all of the "possible" alternatives but he has to know which one you choose before you choose it in order to know everything. I simply argue that if there is something which indicates that a future event has a 100% probability of happening (knowledge requires such a thing and foreknowledge indicates it), then there is 0% probability of anything else happening. If such a thing is a decision I have to make then I had no choice in whatever I "decided".

True , to a point .

One may have two or more choices . One may even know which would be the better of the two . But that doesn't mean that a person will take the better choice . And that is where free will comes in . Knowing what could happen , and know what shall happen , doesn't make it happen . Even knowing what is likely to happpen leaves a chance for something else to happen .

So God knows the possibilities which we may choose and which is the better choice? Yet he does not know which one we actually will take. He might be able to make an educated guess but this is not knowledge and therefore not omniscience. God is unable to know which choice (although he can see all of them) we will make before we make the decision so he doesn't know something.

Edit: However, the existence of an omniscient being is essentially irrelevant when it comes to the debate about free will since there is unrefutable logic (as long as we accept reality) that shows there is no free will without the need of foreknowledge or knowledge of any kind. This would be determinism.

 

[michel]

Okay but there are 2 factors which can be known here. Both need to be known in order for it to qualify as omniscience. One of those is knowing all of the possibilities, or rooms. The other is knowing which room will be chosen. Such foreknowledge is not present in the above scenario and so it is not omniscience.

I do not deny that God can know the first without damaging free will. However, this is not omniscience and therefore does not reconcile omniscience with free will. Omniscience requires both the former and latter knowledge and it is the latter than nullifies free will. Can you factor that into your scenario without loosing free will?

I will say it a different way. In order for God to qualify as omniscient, he must know the decision you will make whenever a choice occurs. He also must know all of the "possible" alternatives but he has to know which one you choose before you choose it in order to know everything. I simply argue that if there is something which indicates that a future event has a 100% probability of happening (knowledge requires such a thing and foreknowledge indicates it), then there is 0% probability of anything else happening. If such a thing is a decision I have to make then I had no choice in whatever I "decided".

So God knows the possibilities which we may choose and which is the better choice? Yet he does not know which one we actually will take. He might be able to make an educated guess but this is not knowledge and therefore not omniscience. God is unable to know which choice (although he can see all of them) we will make before we make the decision so he doesn't know something.

Edit: However, the existence of an omniscient being is essentially irrelevant when it comes to the debate about free will since there is unrefutable logic (as long as we accept reality) that shows there is no free will without the need of foreknowledge or knowledge of any kind. This would be determinism.

Yes, I think so; we believe we are making the decision, and are doing so, of our own free will, God has the steps for the passage into each room mapped out and the steps from that room elsewhere mapped out. The point is, I suppose that once you have made your choice the possible choices from that 1st choice become redundant, and can be discarded. Think a game of chess - theoretically, if your memory is a1, and you know every single move that can be made at any time,your oponent can't beat you, because you have every single option of his 'free will choice of move' in your mind. Which is why sophisticated computers will still beat the very best human.

 

[kreeden]

Are you saying that there is order in chaos Fluffy ? I may disagree with what you say about free will , depending upon how you define " the need of foreknowledge or knowledge of any kind." I guess it would also depend upon your defination of free will ?

And I don't understand why one would have to limit the possibilties by being omniscient ? Once a possibility is discarded , it may as well never been . But they still exist , don't they ?

Now this isn't a debate about theological fatalism . It is just a discusion , and I am just giving opinions here . Personally , I don't much care what God knows , or doesn't know . He ain't telling til it happpens anyway .

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

I was the oldest, and got in a lot of trouble. My mom was never surprised at what I did, because she was very aware of my behavior and my tendancies.

One of my sisters is the typical "good child". But, again, my mom was not surprized when she, too, got in trouble for something. My mom says she saw it coming a mile away.

God knows all about us. He knows what kind of person we are, he knows how we react in certain situations, he is not surprised when we do something, he sees it coming a mile away. Our earthly parents have only been observing our behavior for a few years, and can be pretty good at knowing how you are going to turn out. They may not know the specifics, but they have a pretty good idea.

God on the other hand knows our soul, and has been watching us since time began, through many lifetimes, and many situations.

 

[Fluffy]

Yes, I think so; we believe we are making the decision, and are doing so, of our own free will, God has the steps for the passage into each room mapped out and the steps from that room elsewhere mapped out. The point is, I suppose that once you have made your choice the possible choices from that 1st choice become redundant, and can be discarded.

What this paragraph effectively does is state that we have free will and there is an omniscient God without reconciling either. I say this because the only indication that we have free will in the paragraph is the part I underlined even when the rest of the paragraph goes on to indicate that such free will is an illusion because "God has the steps for the passage into each room mapped out".

This is similar to me trying to prove that an object can be a square and a triangle simultaneously by saying the following: "Whilst this object is a square, it is also a triangle"

See the last paragraph, in reply to kreeden, of this post.

Are you saying that there is order in chaos Fluffy ? I may disagree with what you say about free will , depending upon how you define " the need of foreknowledge or knowledge of any kind." I guess it would also depend upon your defination of free will ?

There cannot be order in chaos. If there was, it would no longer be chaos. However, I do not think what I am suggesting qualifies as order, nor do I think the situation I am applying it to qualifies as chaos.

Free will is the ability to make a choice that is not completely restrained by external influences. There is no need for foreknowledge or knowledge in order for there to be no free will because such things do not restrain free will. If I look into the future and see a choice, I am not restraining that choice by looking into the future. However, I am indicating that such a choice is restrained.

And I don't understand why one would have to limit the possibilties by being omniscient ? Once a possibility is discarded , it may as well never been . But they still exist , don't they ?

Say I have a choice between 3 different possibilities. In order for 1 or all of these possibilities to qualify as a possibility, there has to be a chance that I will have the ability to choose them, no matter how incrementally small. Foreknowledge suggests that one of these possibilities will definitely happen 100%. Therefore, by implication, the other 2 possibilities have a zero percent chance of happening and so can no longer be considered possibilities.

 

[kreeden]

Foreknowledge suggests that one of these possibilities will definitely happen 100%. Therefore, by implication, the other 2 possibilities have a zero percent chance of happening and so can no longer be considered possibilities.

Yes , it would suggest just that . And there in lays the problem eh ? Just because something is suggested , doesn't make it so . It only makes it likely , as we understand it .

Assuming that the Creator is omniscient , would it be that much of a leap of reason to assume that He is also omni-being ? If so , then He is everything . Possibilities , and impossibilities . Good and Evil . Order and Chaos . Thereforth , knowing which possibility will happen , also brings the knowledge that all possibilities may happen , and perhaps even that all possibilities will happen or are happening . The Creator is a paradox , but paradoxes only appear to contradict themselves until we understand them .

Of course , nothing that I have just said likely makes any sense at all . It doesn't fit into the boundries of the logic that you have set . But logic sets limitations , and how can one have limitions within infinity ?

 

[Fluffy]

Yes , it would suggest just that .

And there in lays the problem eh ? Just because something is suggested , doesn't make it so . It only makes it likely , as we understand it .

There are 2 ways around it. The first is by saying that we cannot understand the process so we cannot definitely say that it will wipe out free will. However, that is similar to me saying that the Earth is not necessarily round, we just haven't discovered the technology to allow us to analyse in the right way yet. I don't view such views as inferior, just impossible to argue around since they are not based in logic.

Secondly, we could say that God is omnipotent and therefore can do the illogical including having foreknowledge without removing free will despite the paradox it creates.

Basically, you have summed up exactly what is wrong with my argument in your last paragraph. I am attempting to place logic onto a being which does not necessarily have to follow the laws of logic. Additionally, I am attempting to place logic onto a form of belief which can make such an adaption in order to survive.

 

[kreeden]

I was kinda wondering what you are doing , as it didn't agree with what you had said about logic in another thread .

 

[Fluffy]

I was kinda wondering what you are doing , as it didn't agree with what you had said about logic in another thread .

Such a hole has only been poked in that type of argument very recently for me so I keep on forgetting about it. Actually, you are probably referring to the thread in which that happened in. It also doesn't help that I find it difficult to wrap my brain around the idea .

 

[kreeden]

Don't worry much about it Fluffy . Like everything , logic has it's limits .

One could assume that all things have some degree of truth in them . And that all things have some degree of untruth in them . Logic could lead one to then assume that then all things are True , or all things are Lies . But if you stop to think about it , you really had no reason to go pass the orginal assumation the all things have some degree of truth and untruth .

I'm just using the above as an excample to show that at times , it may be logical to stop logic , before it becomes illogical . If you follow my drift . One just ends up playing games in their minds until nothing makes sense .