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

[Willamena]

I have no problem with your argument - it just changes the definition of omniscient we've been using. If god, or any entity, couldn't know the future, then of course there would be free will.

However, the generally accepted definition of omniscience, as well as what we've specifically been arguing, is knowledge of everything, or infinite knowledge - including every event that will ever occur.

The type of "limited omniscience" you describe wouldn't preclude free will.

Then the request for "a logical refutation of the logical contradiction between omniscience and free-will" must not have been sincere, since the "generally accepted definitions" are carefully crafted to preclude it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Then the request for "a logical refutation of the logical contradiction between omniscience and free-will" must not have been sincere, since the "generally accepted definitions" are carefully crafted to preclude it.

It was quite sincere. His refutation is based on limited omniscience, not omniscience.

 

[Falvlun]

I have no problem with your argument - it just changes the definition of omniscient we've been using. If god, or any entity, couldn't know the future, then of course there would be free will.

However, the generally accepted definition of omniscience, as well as what we've specifically been arguing, is knowledge of everything, or infinite knowledge - including every event that will ever occur.

The type of "limited omniscience" you describe wouldn't preclude free will.

I may not be ascribing to the traditional concept of omniscience, but I'm hardly envisioning a "limited omniscience". Omniscience simply means universal or complete knowledge of everything. Things that don't exist are not included in "everything". Why should they be? Do you argue that God knows the gestation time of unicorns? Do you argue that God is more powerful than any imaginary being?

Quite simply, the future doesn't exist. As such, the future does not fall under the umbrella of things an omniscient being needs to know in order to be omniscient. The non-existence of the future means that both free-will and omniscience are compatable.

Conversely, if the future does exist, then it is its very existence that negates the possibility of free-will. No omniscience is necessary: the future is set in stone whether or not someone knows that it is set in stone.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I may not be ascribing to the traditional concept of omniscience, but I'm hardly envisioning a "limited omniscience". Omniscience simply means universal or complete knowledge of everything. Things that don't exist are not included in "everything". Why should they be? Do you argue that God knows the gestation time of unicorns? Do you argue that God is more powerful than any imaginary being?

Quite simply, the future doesn't exist. As such, the future does not fall under the umbrella of things an omniscient being needs to know in order to be omniscient. The non-existence of the future means that both free-will and omniscience are compatable.

Conversely, if the future does exist, then it is its very existence that negates the possibility of free-will. No omniscience is necessary: the future is set in stone whether or not someone knows that it is set in stone.

Hey, I'm just arguing the logical incompatibility of religionists' concept of an omniscient god and the existence of free will. Their idea of an omniscient god entails a god that knows everything that will ever happen. This is incompatible with free will.

I don't buy into the idea of omniscience, period, so I'm not really into arguing about competing theories of omniscience. I'm just looking for a logical refutation of the argument at hand.

 

[Falvlun]

Hey, I'm just arguing the logical incompatibility of religionists' concept of an omniscient god and the existence of free will. Their idea of an omniscient god entails a god that knows everything that will ever happen. This is incompatible with free will.

I don't buy into the idea of omniscience, period, so I'm not really into arguing about competing theories of omniscience. I'm just looking for a logical refutation of the argument at hand.

I too have trouble reconciling free-will with the traditional (Christian to be specific) concept of God. I'm just saying that logically, omniscience does not have to preclude freewill.

However, even within the traditional concept of omniscience as including knowledge of the future, why do you blame omniscience, and not the existence of the future? The fact that there is a future to even know is what causes the death of free-will, not the fact that there is something there to know it.

 

[Willamena]

I too have trouble reconciling free-will with the traditional (Christian to be specific) concept of God.

If this thread is any indication, I'd hardly call it "traditional" ...perhaps "popular" might be a better word.

 

[Falvlun]

If this thread is any indication, I'd hardly call it "traditional" ...perhaps "popular" might be a better word.

Agreed, and point taken.

 

[meogi]

Yes, and he would also know the one you live in/create with your actions. He knows exactly which of the multiverses you will be part of as a result of your actions. As such, as the OP implies, it is impossible for you to do anything that conflicts with that foreknowledge.

Yes, but those other multi/parallel/quasi-verses would still exist. You make every choice. You only perceive one.

The perception is key; the intent. Quit saying it isn't. You can't have free will without something making a decision. If god intends for you to perceive only this one path, then free will is eliminated. But if god knows which path YOU intend to take, then it isn't. Why does an omniscience knowing the path someone will travel, mean the omniscience is intending them to go that path? To omniscience, you're technically going down every path.

I simply state that if your future is foreknown with certainty, you cannot have free will. I don't recall saying that anyone forces you to act a certain way.

These two sentences are mutually exclusive. If your future is foreknown with certainty, you're saying that whatever is doing the foreknowing is making you do it.

If you choose C there are no other outcomes. A choice is singular.

You're not giving omniscience enough credit.

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths people will go to try and get out of this paradox.

It's a thought experiment. Aren't we supposed to be trying to get out of it?

So, you think that at the same time you chose not to kill someone in anger that you also DID kill them in anger, but you only perceive the didn't-kill part?

Yes. The other 'me' perceived the kill-part. The omniscient being also knew.

What experience in reality leads you to this conclusion?

Thought experiments (undying scientist mainly). What experience in reality leads you to the conclusion that knowing the future causes it to happen?

Please cease and desist building strawmen. I do not claim that an omniscient God would FORCE our actions to be a certain way. I only point out that if your future is foreknown, then choice is an illusion.

Apologies for assuming what your argument was... what's the difference between a choice being an illusion and forcing you to do said choice?

 

[idea]

Does anyone have a logical refutation of the logical contradiction between omniscience and free-will?

Omniscience means knowing everything, not causing everything. There is a big difference between knowing and causing.

I know what will be on TV - does that mean I caused it? No - it just means I can read the TV guide.


We are the cause of our own actions, our actions, not God's, our will.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IMO agency has nothing to do with whether or not the future is set in stone or not. Agency is about "who" sets it in stone, not "if" it is set in stone.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Omniscience means knowing everything, not causing everything. There is a big difference between knowing and causing.

I know what will be on TV - does that mean I caused it? No - it just means I can read the TV guide.


We are the cause of our own actions, our actions, not God's, our will.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IMO agency has nothing to do with whether or not the future is set in stone or not. Agency is about "who" sets it in stone, not "if" it is set in stone.

Okay, so "no".

 

[idea]

Okay, so "no".

you think "knowing something" is the same as "causing" it?

I do not understand the confusion...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

you think "knowing something" is the same as "causing" it?

I do not understand the confusion...

I know.

 

[idea]

Sounds more like people have made up their mind to blame God for their issues rather than taking responsibility for themselves.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sounds more like people have made up their mind to blame God for their issues rather than taking responsibility for themselves.

Actually, not one post in this thread would remotely imply anything of the sort.

 

[idea]

But you have admited that, in any given situation, it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to do something God did not foreknow. Since he knows which ONE action you will take, it is impossible for you to take any other action. In other words, you have no other options.

Any calvanistic type stuff is refusal of taking personal responsibility.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Any calvanistic type stuff is refusal of taking personal responsibility.

Beaudreaux is not a Calvinist, nor did the person he was responding to agree with his conclusion.

 

[idea]

sorry - from the person he was quoting. Just ran back and grabbed a random quote.

This is the only script I can find that talks about God knowing everything:

8 your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
(New Testament | Matthew 6:8)

implies God knows the future. I do not think knowing the future takes away our will though. Again, knowing vs. causing.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

sorry - from the person he was quoting. Just ran back and grabbed a random quote.

This is the only script I can find that talks about God knowing everything:

8 your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
(New Testament | Matthew6:8)

implies God knows the future. I do not think knowing the future takes away our will though. Again, knowing vs. causing.

Various logical arguments have been outlined in this thread however, which clearly lay out the logical contradiction of absolute future knowledge and free will. Your statement about knowing vs. causing doesn't address any of them.

 

[idea]

Various logical arguments have been outlined in this thread however, which clearly lay out the logical contradiction of absolute future knowledge and free will. Your statement about knowing vs. causing doesn't address any of them.

why is it not a choice if the future is known?

To me it does not matter if the future is known or not. Have you ever known someone so well that you could predict what they would do? You know what flavor of ice cream they will order etc. etc... Just becuase you know the future, does it mean they had no choice in what ice cream they should get? They still choose it, they could choose anything they want. Their will, their choice. knowing the future makes no difference at all.

The idea of agency is that we control our own future, and we do. Who controls the future is the issue - not if the future is known or not...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

why is it not a choice if the future is known?

To me it does not matter if the future is known or not. Have you ever known someone so well that you could predict what they would do? You know what flavor of ice cream they will order etc. etc... Just becuase you know the future, does it mean they had no choice in what ice cream they should get? They still choose it, they could choose anything they want. Their will, their choice. knowing it makes no difference at all.

Prediction, even extremely accurate prediction, and certain knowledge are not even close to the same thing. This has already been hashed over repeatedly throughout the thread. I'm not going to argue through these circles again, as multiple responses already exist. Rest assured, it has been covered - again and again.