Free will and omniscience?

[Storm]

It was only an example....

 

[camanintx]

But you're creating a paradox where there isn't one by changing the assumed conditions of omniscience.

I think your argument works fine as opposing omniscience itself, but the free will bit is nonsensical and serves only to confuse things.

I dunno, maybe I'm being dense, maybe not. But the answer to your question is obvious to me.

How am I changing the conditions of omniscience? Doesn't it mean knowing as a fact what will happen just as we know as a fact what has already been?

My argument is that omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive concepts. You can believe in one or the other, but not both. If it works fine as opposing omniscience itself, doesn't it also work the other way?

 

[Willamena]

It was only an example....

It was only an example of not-foreknowledge.

To put the idea of omniscience in perspective, I think, requires looking at a particular picture of the world, snapped in a particular way. You're right that it makes no sense viewed in other photos.

 

[Storm]

How am I changing the conditions of omniscience? Doesn't it mean knowing as a fact what will happen just as we know as a fact what has already been?

Yes, and God would know as a fact that you would change your mind and have chicken. You're changing the conditions of omniscience by saying God doesn't know you'll change your mind.

My argument is that omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive concepts. You can believe in one or the other, but not both. If it works fine as opposing omniscience itself, doesn't it also work the other way?

Well, then, for me at least your argument has failed. You have demonstrated why omniscience is incoherent, but not why it is incompatible with free will. :sorry1:

 

[Storm]

It was only an example of not-foreknowledge.

To put the idea of omniscience in perspective, I think, requires looking at a particular picture of the world, snapped in a particular way. You're right that it makes no sense viewed in other photos.

An interesting metaphor, and thank you.

 

[camanintx]

Yes, and God would know as a fact that you would change your mind and have chicken. You're changing the conditions of omniscience by saying God doesn't know you'll change your mind.

I didn't change anything. The original question starts with the assumption that God knows I will choose beef, then asks what happens to that knowledge if I choose chicken instead. By answering that God will know that I change my mind, you are changing the conditions instead of answering the question.

To phrase it another way, if God's fore-knowledge of my choices can be changed by my having free will, then how can omniscience be anything more than probabilities (or fore-guessing as Wandered Off put it)?

 

[Storm]

I didn't change anything. The original question starts with the assumption that God knows I will choose beef, then asks what happens to that knowledge if I choose chicken instead. By answering that God will know that I change my mind, you are changing the conditions instead of answering the question.

To phrase it another way, if God's fore-knowledge of my choices can be changed by my having free will, then how can omniscience be anything more than probabilities (or fore-guessing as Wandered Off put it)?

I'm saying God's foreknowledge can't be changed. It already includes you changing your mind.

 

[camanintx]

I'm saying God's foreknowledge can't be changed. It already includes you changing your mind.

If God has the foreknowledge that I will eat beef, and God's foreknowledge can't be changed, then I don't have the option to choose chicken, do I?

 

[Storm]

If God has the foreknowledge that I will eat beef, and God's foreknowledge can't be changed, then I don't have the option to choose chicken, do I?

You have the option, God just has the foreknowledge of what you will do. If you choose to eat chicken, that's what God will have foreknowledge of.

camanintx, we seem to have reached that point in debate where there's nothing to be done but repeat ourselves. Before I say "let's just agree to disagree," let me ask: do you understand my position and simply disagree with it, or do you not see where I'm coming from?

 

[camanintx]

You have the option, God just has the foreknowledge of what you will do. If you choose to eat chicken, that's what God will have foreknowledge of.

camanintx, we seem to have reached that point in debate where there's nothing to be done but repeat ourselves. Before I say "let's just agree to disagree," let me ask: do you understand my position and simply disagree with it, or do you not see where I'm coming from?

I think I do understand your position and yes, I do disagree with it. I think that the idea that God (or anything else for that matter) can have any foreknowledge of my choices is incompatible with my free will to make those choices. Either God cannot have foreknowledge or I cannot have free will. Just saying that God's foreknowledge is dependent on my choice does not resolve the paradox such a position entails.

 

[Storm]

OK, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Thank you for the debate.

 

[Willamena]

If God has the foreknowledge that I will eat beef, and God's foreknowledge can't be changed, then I don't have the option to choose chicken, do I?

You have the option, God just has the foreknowledge of what you will do. If you choose to eat chicken, that's what God will have foreknowledge of.

I think the message is that foreknowledge here translates into whatever option is chosen is the chosen option, which doesn't mean it wasn't chosen. It also translates into that all choices are predetermined, which in turn determine a fixed timeline; so camanintx is asking, is that really "a choice"?

The way to see this is to acknowlege that we slip into a past-tense in order to talk about knowlegde. And that's required --knowledge is past-tense. It's a happened thing once we know of it: we have no knowledge of future events, and no language to address such a concept. So for 'God' to have knowledge of the fore of things is to address something that, from God's perspective, has already happened --the complete timeline as fixed and unchanging.

 

[Popeyesays]

I think I do understand your position and yes, I do disagree with it. I think that the idea that God (or anything else for that matter) can have any foreknowledge of my choices is incompatible with my free will to make those choices. Either God cannot have foreknowledge or I cannot have free will. Just saying that God's foreknowledge is dependent on my choice does not resolve the paradox such a position entails.

I think there is a soiritual and ethical spectrum of "free will" that runs from lightly scratching a minor itch to making decisions which define one's self in potentially eternal terms.

From that point of view minor choices have little effect in any point of view.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Yeshua_Lives]

Maybe all life is a will to power.

Maybe God knows this.

 

[logician]

I think I do understand your position and yes, I do disagree with it. I think that the idea that God (or anything else for that matter) can have any foreknowledge of my choices is incompatible with my free will to make those choices. Either God cannot have foreknowledge or I cannot have free will. Just saying that God's foreknowledge is dependent on my choice does not resolve the paradox such a position entails.

The easy way out is that no supernatural exists to have omniscience or omnipotence, we're all on our own, which is the way it should be it think.

 

[Sola'lor]

The way I see it, it's not about divine control, but if our choices already "exist" such that they can be known, then that means we cannot deviate from the known outcome. This seems incompatible with free will to me. Since we don't know the outcome, to ourselves we appear to have free will, but in this scenario it's only an illusion created by our limited perspective.

Only one word in this needs to be changed so it is compatible with freewill. It's not that we CANNOT deviate from the knwon outcome. It's that we WON't deviate from the outcome. Will still have all the choices. We just WON'T choose anything but what we WILL choose.

It just doesn't make any sense to me how free will can contradict omniscience.

In the beef-chicken example saying that God knows you will choose beef regardless of what you will actual choose it creating a paradox on purpose. It's saying that God's knowledge is parallel to our actions. It's saying God knows our choices apart from what we will actually choose. But it's not. It's the same. God would see time as a whole irrespective of future, past, and present. God know whats what you will actually choose. Not what you think you might choose.

 

[crystalonyx]

Given the design of the universe, (the future of the universe cannot be mathematically solved), it is logical to assume that an omnisicent, omnipotent supernatural entity cannot exist. DOn't know why anybody would want such an entity anyways.

 

[Willamena]

The easy way out is that no supernatural exists to have omniscience or omnipotence, we're all on our own, which is the way it should be it think.

You're right: that is easy.

 

[Willamena]

Only one word in this needs to be changed so it is compatible with freewill. It's not that we CANNOT deviate from the knwon outcome. It's that we WON't deviate from the outcome. Will still have all the choices. We just WON'T choose anything but what we WILL choose.

It just doesn't make any sense to me how free will can contradict omniscience.

In the beef-chicken example saying that God knows you will choose beef regardless of what you will actual choose it creating a paradox on purpose. It's saying that God's knowledge is parallel to our actions. It's saying God knows our choices apart from what we will actually choose. But it's not. It's the same. God would see time as a whole irrespective of future, past, and present. God know whats what you will actually choose. Not what you think you might choose.

If there is a thing you will not do, it is still your choice to have the option available? Nah...

 

[crystalonyx]

You're right: that is easy.

Simplify, simplify.