Interesting thought about omniscience.

[Guy Threepwood]

But there is no testing.
Bob knows the results in advance.
Instead of calling it "testing", perhaps it should be "programming".

It depends on who's perspective we're describing again right?

It is testing from our perspective, we don't know what we will fail or succeed at.

God does, we also use trial and error in software to reach very specific desired and known results.

 

[Revoltingest]

It depends on who's perspective we're describing again right?
It is testing from our perspective, we don't know what we will fail or succeed at.
God does, we also use trial and error in software to reach very specific desired and known results.

And Bob, in his vast & inerrant omniscience, knows all that will happen.
Things could not unfold any other way, lest Bob be wrong.
But Bob cannot be wrong, so there is only a single predetermined path for us.
The concept of free will is at odds with this.

 

[Koldo]

Are you assuming that there is God and there is thought?

For the sake of the topic, yes.

Wouldn't an omniscient Deity be the thought as well as the thinker?

I don't see why that must be the case.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And Bob, in his vast & inerrant omniscience, knows all that will happen.
Things could not unfold any other way, lest Bob be wrong.
But Bob cannot be wrong, so there is only a single predetermined path for us.
The concept of free will is at odds with this.

I think not

If you watch a replay of your favorite Wolverines game, you know in your omniscience exactly what will happen.

Does this mean the players had no free will to chose their plays?


free will and destiny absolutely coexist here, just from different perspectives- the free will belongs to the player, the knowledge of destiny belongs to you

 

[Demonslayer]

If you watch a replay of your favorite Wolverines game, you know in your omniscience exactly what will happen.

Does this mean the players had no free will to chose their plays?

A replay assumes the play already took place, and allows for the idea that the players had control over their actions.

If I knew the result of the game BEFORE it was played, than the score was going to be 27-7 no matter what the players tried to do. Each and every pass and run had to play out the way I knew it would, or else my foreknowledge would have been incorrect.

Can God be incorrect about his foreknowledge? Can we "surprise" God?

 

[Demonslayer]

Consider the lottery. I can watch a REPLAY of the lottery drawing and pick the winning numbers every time. They could have been any number.

If I'm All Powerful Omniscient Bob, and I know the numbers are going to be 7-13-32-44-57 ahead of time, the ping pong ball with the number 2 on it is not free to pop up.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think not

If you watch a replay of your favorite Wolverines game, you know in your omniscience exactly what will happen.

Does this mean the players had no free will to chose their plays?


free will and destiny absolutely coexist here, just from different perspectives- the free will belongs to the player, the knowledge of destiny belongs to you

If they had free will, then there could be more than one outcome.
But Bob knows the outcome in advance.
Because Bob cannot be wrong, the outcome he knows is the only possible one.
Free will isn't free if only one of a human's choices is possible.
It is at best the illusion of free will.
So......you may pick free will.....or you may pick Bob being omniscient.
But you cannot pick both.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

A replay assumes the play already took place, and allows for the idea that the players had control over their actions.

If I knew the result of the game BEFORE it was played, than the score was going to be 27-7 no matter what the players tried to do. Each and every pass and run had to play out the way I knew it would, or else my foreknowledge would have been incorrect.

Can God be incorrect about his foreknowledge? Can we "surprise" God?

right, so the players can't surprise you, but this doesn't mean they can't surprise themselves and their opponents. i.e. destiny and free will coexisting.

 

[Demonslayer]

right, so the players can't surprise you, but this doesn't mean they can't surprise themselves and their opponents. i.e. destiny and free will coexisting.

Why can't you see this?

On Friday night, the night before the big game, God sees that #84 will catch a 45 yard touchdown pass.
On Saturday, during the game, is it possible that #84 drops the pass and doesn't score?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If they had free will, then there could be more than one outcome.
But Bob knows the outcome in advance.
Because Bob cannot be wrong, the outcome he knows is the only possible one.
Free will isn't free if only one of a human's choices is possible.
It is at best the illusion of free will.
So......you may pick free will.....or you may pick Bob being omniscient.
But you cannot pick both.

I can pick being omniscient by watching a replay, and at the same time I can pick free will for the players I am watching.

Otherwise the act of watching the game changes the free will of the players?

 

[Revoltingest]

I can pick being omniscient by watching a replay, and at the same time I can pick free will for the players I am watching.
Otherwise the act of watching the game changes the free will of the players?

If there are multiple possible outcomes, & Bob doesn't know which will happen, then he isn't omniscient.
The presumption of omniscience seems unreasonable.
But free will doesn't appear to be testable.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why can't you see this?

On Friday night, the night before the big game, God sees that #84 will catch a 45 yard touchdown pass.
On Saturday, during the game, is it possible that #84 drops the pass and doesn't score?

No, because #15 exercised his free will to pass to #84 and he caught it, and God knows this, unless he went to get more chips at the time.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If there are multiple possible outcomes, & Bob doesn't know which will happen, then he isn't omniscient.
The presumption of omniscience seems unreasonable.
But free will doesn't appear to be testable.

Time itself was created along with our universe, as far as we can tell yes? so whether the creator was intelligent or an automated machine, they necessarily transcend time as we understand it, right?

So neither creator is restrained by the laws of their own creation. -

Just as only being able to occupy one space, doesn't mean the rest doesn't exist, so all time exists concurrently, from the larger perspective, everything happens simultaneously

Does this mean free will is an illusion? it depends entirely on perspective again. But in practical reality, we do perceive our free will, we do perceive to make choices- good over evil, and this is what gives them meaning.

 

[Revoltingest]

Time itself was created along with our universe, as far as we can tell yes?

We don't know if this is cromulent or not.

so whether the creator was intelligent or an automated machine, they necessarily transcend time as we understand it, right?

This is something we can't verify either.

So neither creator is restrained by the laws of their own creation. -

How would we know this?
But I'd expect that laws of logic would be universal.

Just as only being able to occupy one space, doesn't mean the rest doesn't exist, so all time exists concurrently, from the larger perspective, everything happens simultaneously
Does this mean free will is an illusion? it depends entirely on perspective again. But in practical reality, we do perceive our free will, we do perceive to make choices- good over evil, and this is what gives them meaning.

I perceive that I have free will.
But I'm predestined to believe it, eh?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We don't know if this is cromulent or not.

This is something we can't verify either.

How would we know this?
But I'd expect that laws of logic would be universal.

I perceive that I have free will.
But I'm predestined to believe it, eh?

We're all guessing, I don't claim to be able demonstrate anything, other than that there is no inherent conflict in the principles here;

That being tested can play a crucial role, even where we know the outcome- where the testing is the means to achieve that outcome

and that knowing how somebody choses to apply their free will, does not rob that person of their free will. No more than our knowing the result of a coin toss, renders that coin biased

Must run and might be off for a while so just to put in context..

The ultimate point of free will, is the ultimate point for anything: Love- it can't be mandated, it must be freely chosen by the individual and from the individuals perspective, independent from any external knowledge of that choice.
A universe without sentient beings would be loveless.
To me that's the biggest give-away for a designed universe. Just like the 10 royal flushes gives away the cheat,

only the odds of chance are far less
the pay-off is far greater
there is no known random card dealing system
and no known security system to prevent 'cheating'

 

[Revoltingest]

We're all guessing, I don't claim to be able demonstrate anything, other than that there is no inherent conflict in the principles here;

The only thing I can objectively address is logical conclusions from premises.
Free will & Bob's omniscience are incompatible.

Why presume Bob is omniscient?
It would be reasonable to say he can't predict the future in infinitely small detail.

 

[morphesium]

Now, for my thought we are going to simply presume that there is a god, and that god has omniscience. Now, what occurred is kind of just a little bit of a mind bender. The idea is that maybe we, in this existence, don't actually exist. We are simply either the, or a, logical progression of the knowledge that an omniscient being would have. Essentially, we exist, or not, depending on how you look at it, as a thought of an omniscient being, as it asks a particular question. We don't know the question, but it can't be a great one, as if it were something like "what would a universe with only happiness be like?" I can only imagine this would be a very different existence, lol.

So, what do you guys think? Makes sense or utter hogwash? Got any weird or kooky ideas of your own? Share!

This is a great "out of the box" thinking, which is always welcomed.

We human beings simulate various things in the computer because it is more "cost effective" to know what the results are or to get some kind of training (as with flight simulators etc).
If God is the knower of all, why does he need to simulate such things if he already know the results?
If it is to give some kind of training - then God doesn't need that even. With training , our brain forms new connections and signals pass through them more efficiently which makes one finally trained. Taxi drivers (due to their job) makes their brain more developed in terms of spacial sensing -(to think and locate where a particular place is, to think of alternate ways to get there etc). God can simply make the brain more developed for the purpose even without training. Simple chemicals can do that - make one more alert. Moreover, training can be made more scientific - one training takes much effort and the other more scientific one takes much lesser effort.

 

[morphesium]

Swap "I" and "God" in that sentence and you've got it exactly right.

 

[George-ananda]

So, what do you guys think? Makes sense or utter hogwash? Got any weird or kooky ideas of your own? Share!

Here's my non-dual (God and creation are not-two) pantheistic way of looking at it. 'We are God' as kooky as that sounds to those with Abrahamic world enculturation.

God/Brahman is pure consciousness; being-awareness-bliss (sat-chit-ananda in Hinduism). God/Brahman in His creative aspect creates a play/drama in which He separates Himself from Himself and returns Himself to Himself. In this view God/Brahman consciousness animates finite forms to experience limitation and then the glory of expansion back to that Oneness. It's all divine sport.

 

[rageoftyrael]

This is a great "out of the box" thinking, which is always welcomed.

We human beings simulate various things in the computer because it is more "cost effective" to know what the results are or to get some kind of training (as with flight simulators etc).
If God is the knower of all, why does he need to simulate such things if he already know the results?
If it is to give some kind of training - then God doesn't need that even. With training , our brain forms new connections and signals pass through them more efficiently which makes one finally trained. Taxi drivers (due to their job) makes their brain more developed in terms of spacial sensing -(to think and locate where a particular place is, to think of alternate ways to get there etc). God can simply make the brain more developed for the purpose even without training. Simple chemicals can do that - make one more alert. Moreover, training can be made more scientific - one training takes much effort and the other more scientific one takes much lesser effort.

It's not so much that God would be doing it on purpose. More like we are, as a poster above said, a figment of god's imagination. We exist because we think we exist, but do we really? That's where the mind bender comes in, in my opinion. Ultimately, we can gauge our universe and apply all these rules, and even be right about every one of them, but potentially be missing the point, which is that nothing is even real. Or, that it isn't really real, lol. Of course, this whole idea assumes a lot, so I have no reason to believe it's true. It's just an interesting thought.