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

[idea]

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.

certain knowledge does not take away our ability to choose. Apples and oranges.

Because God knows Jill will choose chocolate ice cream Jill has no choice in the matter? That makes no sense. Jill has a choice in the matter. God knowing what her choice will be in no way takes away her agency.

 

[Willamena]

certain knowledge does not take away our ability to choose. Apples and oranges.

Because God knows Jill will choose chocolate ice cream Jill has no choice in the matter? That makes no sense. Jill has a choice in the matter. God knowing what her choice will be in no way takes away her agency.

I suspect the confusion rests in that the word "choice" is also used as a synonym for "option". It is options that drop away in significance when an outcome is known. With no options, no choice is necessary.

Edit: If I misunderstood, though, then sorry.

 

[Falvlun]

atotalstranger, I've presented my first argument to you. I still do not understand why you do not accept the fact that it is the mere existence of the future that would cause the demise of free-will, whether or not there was an omniscient being to know it.

Anyway, here is my other argument, along the more popular definition of omniscience (I dug it up from a previous thread: Free Will Revisited)


Argument for Free-will and Omniscience

• 1. If the future is not known, then free-will exists. Argument premise
• 2. The future is known (b/c God is omniscient) Argument premise
• 3. In order for the future to exist, the past for that future must also exist. Nature of time
• 4. God could not know the future unless the past (all the time that leads up to that future) happened first. Follows from 3
• 5. The past happens before the future is known. Follows from 4
• 6. Free-will exists in that past Follows from 1 and 5
• 7. Therefore, free-will exists when the future is known as well.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

atotalstranger, I've presented my first argument to you. I still do not understand why you do not accept the fact that it is the mere existence of the future that would cause the demise of free-will, whether or not there was an omniscient being to know it.

I never disagreed with this - or stated an opinion on it one way or the other. I agree that if all future events are already determined, then no free will can exist, regardless of whether an agency knows these events or not. That is perfectly logical. I guess I just didn't understand how your argument was germaine to the argument of free-will being incompatible with omnscience.

Anyway, here is my other argument, along the more popular definition of omniscience (I dug it up from a previous thread: Free Will Revisited)


Argument for Free-will and Omniscience

• 1. If the future is not known, then free-will exists. Argument premise
• 2. The future is known (b/c God is omniscient) Argument premise

Your first two argument premises result in the conclusion that free will does not exist. You state that, if the future is not known, then free will exists. You then state that the future is known, thereby resulting in the conclusion that free will does not exist.

I fail to see how your remaining bullet points overcome this.

 

[logician]

I believe we have free will because our future actions cannot be predicted with certainty. However, that free will is necesarily quite constrained within the limited bounds of laws and social mores. As far as omniscience goes, as an atheist, of course, it is a moot point.

 

[Falvlun]

I never disagreed with this - or stated an opinion on it one way or the other. I agree that if all future events are already determined, then no free will can exist, regardless of whether an agency knows these events or not. That is perfectly logical. I guess I just didn't understand how your argument was germaine to the argument of free-will being incompatible with omnscience.

Because the argument at hand is whether omniscience precludes the possibility of free-will. The existence of the future is what makes knowledge of the future possible. It is the mere existence of that future that causes the free-will conundrum. Thus, you can't say omniscience is the cause of free-will's demise.
Furthermore, omniscience and free-will are perfectly compatible, if the future is unknowable. It is an unwarranted assumption to say that omniscience necessarily includes knowledge of the future. If "knowledge of the future" is what you mean, then that is what you should say, rather than "omniscience".

Your first two argument premises result in the conclusion that free will does not exist. You state that, if the future is not known, then free will exists. You then state that the future is known, thereby resulting in the conclusion that free will does not exist.

I fail to see how your remaining bullet points overcome this.

You just committed the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Because the argument at hand is whether omniscience precludes the possibility of free-will. The existence of the future is what makes knowledge of the future possible. It is the mere existence of that future that causes the free-will conundrum. Thus, you can't say omniscience is the cause of free-will's demise.

Uh, okay. I never said omniscience was the cause, only that it was incompatible with free will. You're inventing an argument I never made, and that I don't disagree with.

Furthermore, omniscience and free-will are perfectly compatible, if the future is unknowable. It is an unwarranted assumption to say that omniscience necessarily includes knowledge of the future. If "knowledge of the future" is what you mean, then that is what you should say, rather than "omniscience".

Yes, if the future is unknowable. This has already been addressed as different than the standard type of ominscience argued by most religionists, which includes knowledge of all future events, and which was the type of ominiscience being addressed in this thread. I thought we already covered this.

You just committed the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

So, you're saying that your first premise was incorrectly stated then. Since the "if" condition is obviously unneccesary, the instead of reading "If the future is not known, then free-will exists. Argument premise", it should simply read "Free-will exists. Argument premise".

Call me crazy, but I disagree with your argument attempting to prove free-will exists, when its first premise is "free-will exists".

 

[Beaudreaux]

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

That is not the point of this thread at all. I am an atheist and do not blame God for anything because I do not believe he exists. The point of this thread is that if the future is already known, then you cannot have free will. There is no motive behind this that suggests abrigation of personal or moral responsibility. Remember, I can believe in free will because I do not believe in an omnipotent God. You believe in an omnipotent God and so cannot believe you have free will.

 

[Beaudreaux]

certain knowledge does not take away our ability to choose. Apples and oranges.

Because God knows Jill will choose chocolate ice cream Jill has no choice in the matter? That makes no sense. Jill has a choice in the matter. God knowing what her choice will be in no way takes away her agency.

Let's apply the question in the OP to your example. So, if God knows Jill will choose chocoate ice cream, is it possible for her to choose anything else? In other words, is it possible for her to do something God did not already know she would do?

 

[Beaudreaux]

atotalstranger, I've presented my first argument to you. I still do not understand why you do not accept the fact that it is the mere existence of the future that would cause the demise of free-will, whether or not there was an omniscient being to know it.

I have been thinking a lot about this argument and I think it has a lot of merit. If the future exists now, then of course there can be no free will. I do not believe the future exists until it becomes the present and so I now understand earlier statements that only the present exists. Certainly the concept of the future exists, but future events have no existence until they happen in the present.

So, you might say that if the future does not exist, how can God know it? Does He know the average weight of unicorns and other non-existent info? The difference between future events and other non-existent things is that future events WILL come into existence eventually. As such, they are not knowable by you and I, but should be in the realm of knowledge for an omniscient God, and the BIble supports this view of Him. Prophecy alone speaks to God's knowledge of future events.

Anyway, here is my other argument, along the more popular definition of omniscience (I dug it up from a previous thread: Free Will Revisited)



Argument for Free-will and Omniscience

• 1. If the future is not known, then free-will exists. Argument premise
• 2. The future is known (b/c God is omniscient) Argument premise
• 3. In order for the future to exist, the past for that future must also exist. Nature of time
• 4. God could not know the future unless the past (all the time that leads up to that future) happened first. Follows from 3
• 5. The past happens before the future is known. Follows from 4
• 6. Free-will exists in that past Follows from 1 and 5
• 7. Therefore, free-will exists when the future is known as well.

Good stuff! My issue with this argument is step 4 for reasons I have explained above.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I believe we have free will because our future actions cannot be predicted with certainty. However, that free will is necesarily quite constrained within the limited bounds of laws and social mores. As far as omniscience goes, as an atheist, of course, it is a moot point.

I KNEW you were going to say that.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Because the argument at hand is whether omniscience precludes the possibility of free-will. The existence of the future is what makes knowledge of the future possible.

This is where we disagree with regard to a God that is all-knowing. I think mainstream Christianity would disagree with you as well. The idea of a God who has only a slightly better idea about the future than you or I do does not inspire one to worship. It also means that Biblical prophecy about future events like the apocalypse is not to be taken seriously. If you are right, then God is not at all sure that such things will come to pass.

 

[Willamena]

...I do not believe the future exists until it becomes the present

...The difference between future events and other non-existent things is that future events WILL come into existence eventually.

How do you know? I mean... they come into existence in the present, so how do you know what comes into existence in the present was "meant to be"?

 

[lunamoth]

This is where we disagree with regard to a God that is all-knowing. I think mainstream Christianity would disagree with you as well. The idea of a God who has only a slightly better idea about the future than you or I do does not inspire one to worship. It also means that Biblical prophecy about future events like the apocalypse is not to be taken seriously. If you are right, then God is not at all sure that such things will come to pass.

Actually, I agree with Falvlun yet I am a mainstream Christian and I find God quite worthy of worship. Apocalyptic writing is not about future telling. The future does not exist, so it is unknowable. The only thing that exists is the ever-fleeting eternal moment of 'now.' We live in a rational universe that follows laws, so we can make predictions about the future. Prophets can make predictions about the future, but all predictions are contingent (because of free will).

 

[Beaudreaux]

How do you know? I mean... they come into existence in the present, so how do you know what comes into existence in the present was "meant to be"?

I don't believe it was "meant to be". I know that things will change as time goes by and some of those changes are more probable than others. I know that every 24 hours or so, I will need to get up and go to a job. There is predictability to it, but not certain knowledge.

 

[Willamena]

I don't believe it was "meant to be". I know that things will change as time goes by and some of those changes are more probable than others. I know that every 24 hours or so, I will need to get up and go to a job. There is predictability to it, but not certain knowledge.

Right; and the prediction, the predictability, the information its based on, the extrapolation into a "future", even the imagining of what that future might look like... all those things exist here, now.

There's no part of "WILL come into existence eventually" that isn't here, now.

I need more coffee.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Actually, I agree with Falvlun yet I am a mainstream Christian and I find God quite worthy of worship.

I did not mean to imply that you were somehow a fringe element. What I am saying is that the position of most (if not all) Christian denominations is that God is omniscient. That is what I mean by "mainstream".

Apocalyptic writing is not about future telling.

It's not?

 

[lunamoth]

I did not mean to imply that you were somehow a fringe element. What I am saying is that the position of most (if not all) Christian denominations is that God is omniscient. That is what I mean by "mainstream".

Well, I would say that God is 'all-knowing,' which is omniscient. The thing is God can only know what can be known. The future is something that can't be known. I know you reject that, but really you are no more correct than I am. The future could only be known if we lived in a determinant world with no free will. But that is not the case.

It's not?

Apocalyptic writings are written to a people to exhort, comfort, and proclaim God's majesty and sovereignty.

 

[Comicaze247]

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

Seriously, I hear this argument so much. What does this have to do with disproving a concept? If I don't believe in your "God," how can I blame him for anything?

 

[Kay]

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.

Dang I wish I could give frubals! I tried to say something similar (incompletely) a few dozen pages ago.