Is it possible for you to do anything that God did not already know you would do?

[Mister Emu]

It made more sense in my head earlier

So much does...

But what you're suggesting is that you write out your whole life before you live it.

Only sort of... the writing analogy only carries so far. You "write" your story as you go... you just have written, will write, and are writing every part of it at the same time

It's negated the moment it passes.

But if you go back in time, the moment hasn't passed yet... that you know what will be chosen doesn't change that there are other option that could be...

Because the moment has passed.

And if I am correct, it also has yet to pass... the option of the pepsi is still freely there, you just decide not to take it...

It is not possible for you to make any other.

Not what I'm saying... all the possible options are still possible, but you decide not to take them...

 

[Enoch07]

EXACTLY!!! NOW you're starting to get it. That IS the decision you will make and it IS guaranteed. It is not possible for you to make any other.

Yes It is the decision you are guaranteed to make. But you had other options. No matter which option you choose it is always the guaranteed decision.

 

[meogi]

Let's regroup by addressing the question this thread is all about. Please tell me, is it possible for you to do anything that God did not already know you would do?

I guess you missed my original post where I answered it.

No.

But knowing what you WILL choose does not inhibit free will.

All I'm trying to do is reconcile your paradox. There can be free will WITH an omniscient God IF the omniscience doesn't have intent.

You can't decide the wrong option; but HOW that decision was reached is what I'm trying to point out to you. What was the motive behind the decision? If God is influencing your ability to choose, then we don't have free will. But if he isn't, and simply KNOWS what we decide, then we have free will WITH him being omniscient.

You don't have to agree with it, but it is correct in it's valid reconciliation of the paradox.

What's funny is I don't believe in either an omniscient God or free will. I view us more as Non-deterministic touring machines.

[edit] Noticed Emu's quote:

Not what I'm saying... all the possible options are still possible, but you decide not to take them..

Or maybe, how can you make more than one choice per decision? Each decision has multiple options but only has one outcome. How, if God knows the outcome, is he influencing your making that decision?

If you can convince me omniscience has influence over free will, then I'll admit the paradox remains a paradox. Otherwise it's just a finished thought experiment.

 

[Comicaze247]

Only sort of... the writing analogy only carries so far. You "write" your story as you go... you just have written, will write, and are writing every part of it at the same time

I understand the concept you're trying to explain. But I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, as we're discussing theories, and I just don't agree with it.

But if you go back in time, the moment hasn't passed yet... that you know what will be chosen doesn't change that there are other option that could be...

The moment of decision has passed for the person you are observing. It was already written. Sure, it hasn't passed for you, the observer, because you're watching it.

And if I am correct, it also has yet to pass... the option of the pepsi is still freely there, you just decide not to take it...

Yes, the pepsi is still there free for me to choose to decide to drink it. But the chance to decide if I finish typing this very sentence before or after I take my next sip, has already passed, as I just finished typing it.

Not what I'm saying... all the possible options are still possible, but you decide not to take them...

I don't remember what you're actually replying to, so I'm reading this out of context. Could you tell me which post you got this from? I've looked, but I can't seem to find it

 

[Mister Emu]

I understand the concept you're trying to explain. But I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, as we're discussing theories, and I just don't agree with it.

That is fine... though I must ask whether you disagree that the concept exists as I have tried to explain, or that the concept if existing would still negate free will?

But the chance to decide if I finish typing this very sentence before or after I take my next sip, has already passed, as I just finished typing it.

For what you perceive as your present self yes, but if your past self still exists the option is still there...

I don't remember what you're actually replying to, so I'm reading this out of context. Could you tell me which post you got this from? I've looked, but I can't seem to find it

My apologies, sometimes I forget to differentiate my quotes, it is in response to a statement Beaudreaux made in post #479

 

[JMorris]

For what you perceive as your present self yes, but if your past self still exists the option is still there...

our present self exists based on what our past self "chose". if my present self has drank the pepsi, then the past self "decided" to drink it. if the past self "decides" not to drink it, then the present self would be a different present self. i hope im making sense, but the level at which you've presented your arguement, i think you will have no trouble understanding.

you have been so far the only person with an opposing view to be able to argue your point effectively, i give you cudos for that. i hope that dosent sound arrogant i mean it as a genuine compliment.

our future selves would exist based on what our present selves have "chosen" to do. but if you think it is possible to know what our future selves would do, before we get to that point in time, then that is what we will do. regardless of we percieve as a "choice", the "choice" has already been made, there is no changing the "choice"

if god knows the future, and he can decide what that future would be, then he is making the choice to reflect what he wants that future to be. if he simply knows the future, and cant decide the future, then i dont see how he could have free will. (example) if he knew before creating satan, what satan would do. that would mean that satan was created, because satan existed in the future. and if god saw in the future, that satan would rebel, then satan would have to rebel. there would be no alternative to that scenario, because god saw it happen, the future was knowable, it existed. it dosent matter if satan went through a process that resembelled "choice" because in the end he could only make 1 "choice", the "choice" god knew he would make.

 

[rageoftyrael]

intent means nothing. whether he has intent or does not, whether he actively messes with your "choices" or is just aware of them. If the future is unchangeable, then choice is simply an illusion. Oh, and assuming that you are correct, even though people agree with you, smacks of arrogance. You may well be correct, i'll allow for that, and by allowing for your correctness, i allow for my incorrectness. But your logic, based on intent, reconciles nothing, as far as i can tell. If the future is unchangeable, then free will is simply an illusion.

Makes sense to me.

 

[Comicaze247]

That is fine... though I must ask whether you disagree that the concept exists as I have tried to explain, or that the concept if existing would still negate free will?

Well, since I don't believe that everything is already written, then to me, the concept can't be true. In my opinion, if it did exist, there would exist an infinite amount different dimensions (not like the 4th dimension) that spawn from the different decisions of different people. A dimension for every decision, so to speak (think Jet Li's "The One"). If that's the case, in reality, free will means nothing, as every possible decision I could have made at one moment would have been taken by a different "me" in a different dimension. A dimension where Hitler decided to be a nice guy instead. A dimension where Einstein never developed the theory of relativity because he decided to take a nap, or something.

For what you perceive as your present self yes, but if your past self still exists the option is still there...

But since that part is written, they have no free will. They believe they have free will at that moment, because when the present you was in that moment, you did. Now if you take the crazy thought of dimensions I mentioned above p) then yes, the option is still there.

My apologies, sometimes I forget to differentiate my quotes, it is in response to a statement Beaudreaux made in post #479

Ah, figured as much.

 

[JMorris]

a dimension for every possible outcome to every possible occurence. not just human choices. a dimension where there is no universe, because there was no bang. a dimension where there is no life on earth. a dimension where we're talking lizard people, ect

 

[Comicaze247]

a dimension for every possible outcome to every possible occurence. not just human choices. a dimension where there is no universe, because there was no bang. a dimension where there is no life on earth. a dimension where we're talking lizard people, ect

Hmm. I wouldn't include natural disasters in that category. Nature doesn't "decide" to do anything. It acts to the stimulus around it. The thing that changes it are animals, mostly us humans, and that would cause different dimensions.

 

[JMorris]

good point

 

[logician]

"There can be free will WITH an omniscient God IF the omniscience doesn't have intent."

An omniscient god has no free will by definition, because it knows all of its own future actions. The entire future is predestined in its view. Otherwise, it is not omniscient.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Once you understand that omniscience would render time meaningless, you will understand that no choices are possible, since all choices are set in stone. If you cannot understand that omniscience would render time meaningless, then it's highly possible the inevitable logical conclusion of this thought experiment will elude you. That's pretty much it.

 

[JMorris]

arent thought experiments fun?

 

[Kay]

Is it possible for you to do ANYthing that God did not already know you would do?
​

Yes.

(OK, I have to add more 'cause it won't let me post this if I don't.)

 

[JMorris]

Yes.

(OK, I have to add more 'cause it won't let me post this if I don't.)

fair enough

 

[Willamena]

"There can be free will WITH an omniscient God IF the omniscience doesn't have intent."

An omniscient god has no free will by definition, because it knows all of its own future actions. The entire future is predestined in its view. Otherwise, it is not omniscient.

That basically says the same thing that you quoted. With no intent, there is no action, and so no need for a requirement of no free will.

 

[Mister Emu]

i hope im making sense, but the level at which you've presented your arguement, i think you will have no trouble understanding.

Indeed, and you wouldn't even know

But you are the same person who decided not to drink the pepsi, that is why you will continue to not do so... at least in my opinion...

if god knows the future, and he can decide what that future would be, then he is making the choice to reflect what he wants that future to be.

I don't see how the ability to decide necessitates the action of deciding...

if he knew before creating satan, what satan would do. that would mean that satan was created, because satan existed in the future. and if god saw in the future, that satan would rebel, then satan would have to rebel. there would be no alternative to that scenario, because god saw it happen, the future was knowable, it existed. it dosent matter if satan went through a process that resembelled "choice" because in the end he could only make 1 "choice", the "choice" god knew he would make.

I see it differently... you don't have only one choice that which God knows... God knows because of the choice you made from your varied option. Satan didn't rebel because God knew it, God knew it because Satan did it.

But since that part is written, they have no free will.

But it also isn't written yet, thus they have free will.

Once you understand that omniscience would render time meaningless, you will understand that no choices are possible, since all choices are set in stone.

Choice already being exercised is not the same thing as choice not existing...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Choice already being exercised is not the same thing as choice not existing...

...round and round, round and round...

 

[JMorris]

Indeed, and you wouldn't even know

But you are the same person who decided not to drink the pepsi, that is why you will continue to not do so... at least in my opinion...


I don't see how the ability to decide necessitates the action of deciding...


I see it differently... you don't have only one choice that which God knows... God knows because of the choice you made from your varied option. Satan didn't rebel because God knew it, God knew it because Satan did it.

ok, let me put it differently. if my past self drank the pepsi, then my present self will have pepsi in his belly because his past self drank the pepsi. if my present self dosent have pepsi in his belly, then the past self didnt drink the pepsi. my present self is created by what my past self does, obviously making the past "choice" made and unchangeable.
if my future self is known to drink the pepsi again, when the time comes, will the present self (which was the future self) drink the pepsi? if the future is known, and it is seen that he will, then can he not? if he can not, is it a choice? if its not a choice then is it simply an action that was known to happen in the future (like an actor entering stage left during a certain part of the 3rd act?)
you can argue that our "present" selves is a perception of the time in which we percieve ourselves being in, but our present selves is created by what our past selves have "chosen" to do, and our future selves is created by what our "present" selves do. and if it is knowable what our future selves do, then it must happen in order to create our future-future selves (wow this is getting complicated) and if it is known what our future-future selves will do, then it must happen in order to create our future-future-future selves, ect
bleh i hope this makes sense to someone other than myself