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

[Beaudreaux]

Question: does that include "uncertainty" as one of the "everything"? Does God "absolutely know" uncertainty?

If you are omniscient, there is no such thing as uncertainty for you.

 

[lunamoth]

Choice is a conscious decision and therefore consciousness is the key here. I cannot have made a choice without being conscious of it. Because I am a human being and AM timebound, I cannot make a choice until an event comes into the present. At that moment, an omniscient God already knows what action I will take. I can take no other and choice is obviated.

I think that example is backwards. If you could go into the FUTURE to watch an event, your knowledge of that future (provided what you saw is not changeable) obviates choice.

Beau, do you believe you have free will and can make moral choices?

 

[Storm]

Ah. Where we got off course here is that I'm arguing about the concept of an omniscient god as defined by most religions, including christianity, which says that god knows everything that is going to happen.

I have no problem with the idea of a god who knows everything that has already happened, but doesn't have knowledge of the future. Any concept of god is equally as plausible to me, I just need it clearly defined up front so I know what I'm discussing.

In your case, obviously free will would exist, since no one knows with absolute knowledge what is going to happen in the future.

Ah, ok. It just got a little confusing when we tried to discuss my concepts simultaneously.

 

[Storm]

First of all, great exchange between you and Stranger! Good reading.

Glad you enjoyed it!

If logic does not apply to God then there is no use trying to understand Him at all. This forum would be pointless and filled with statements that would start with "How do you know" and that would completely unanswerable.

ITA. As I said, this is part of why I reject the concept.

Me, I can't help but try anyway.

 

[Willamena]

Please rephrase this so it makes some kind of sense. Thanks.

Do you know uncertainty? I know I do, frequently.

If you are omniscient, there is no such thing as uncertainty for you.

Yeah: I know more than this 'God' does. Needless to say, I find the given defintion of "omniscient" unsatisfying.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Beau, do you believe you have free will and can make moral choices?

Good question. I do believe we have free will. Mechanistic materialism would disagree with me, but there is enough uncertainty at the subatomic level for me to believe that not everything is predictable in a Newtonian sense. In other words, I don't think my actions are not simply predetermined responses to stimuli.

Also, it's nice to be able to hold people accountable for breaking the law, though I suppose you could make the argument that free will is not necessary to do so. If we are all just machines responding to stimuli, then some of the machines are malfunctioning and they must be separated from the others for society to advance.

 

[lunamoth]

Good question. I do believe we have free will. Mechanistic materialism would disagree with me, but there is enough uncertainty at the subatomic level for me to believe that not everything is predictable in a Newtonian sense. In other words, I don't think my actions are not simply predetermined responses to stimuli.

Also, it's nice to be able to hold people accountable for breaking the law, though I suppose you could make the argument that free will is not necessary to do so. If we are all just machines responding to stimuli, then some of the machines are malfunctioning and they must be separated from the others for society to advance.

Do animals have free will?

What makes the difference, if anything?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Do animals have free will?

What makes the difference, if anything?

I suppose they do according to my definition.

 

[lunamoth]

I suppose they do according to my definition.

Does that mean that animals are morally responsible, or that humans are not?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Does that mean that animals are morally responsible, or that humans are not?

Hey, when it comes to animals, might makes right. We have no moral obligation to them. To me morality is all about human suffering and happiness. Call me a speciesist.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Do you know uncertainty? I know I do, frequently.

This is more semantics. To "know uncertainty" is idiomatic. It doesn't describe knowledge of something, but rather a particular state - to be uncertain.

Yeah: I know more than this 'God' does. Needless to say, I find the given defintion of "omniscient" unsatisfying.

It's about the actual ideas, not the words. I am arguing with those who share the definition of omniscience that I am addressing. If you have a different, specific concept/idea that you'd like to discuss, feel free.

 

[lunamoth]

Hey, when it comes to animals, might makes right. We have no moral obligation to them. To me morality is all about human suffering and happiness. Call me a speciesist.

So what is the difference? Why isn't it just might makes right for humans as well?

 

[Willamena]

This is more semantics. To "know uncertainty" is idiomatic. It doesn't describe knowledge of something, but rather a particular state - to be uncertain.

Surely that is knowledge of a particular state? Or are states to be excluded from the set of "everything"?

It's about the actual ideas, not the words.

Just so. If the idea of omniscience is "knowledge of everything" why would anything be excluded?

The idea that 'God' knows all but 'all' is only certain things limits the whole concept.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Surely that is knowledge of a particular state? Or are states to be excluded from the set of "everything"?

Sure, this omniscient god would know what uncertainty is - it would have the understanding that uncertainty is a state of not being sure of something, but it wouldn't ever be uncertain, as knowledge of everything excludes any uncertainty. I can't tell whether you're being facetious or not, as usual.

Again, I think you need to start over from the fact that "knowing uncertainty" isn't a statement on knowledge, but on a state of being. Omniscient means knowing everything, not being everything.

Just so. If the idea of omniscience is "knowledge of everything" why would anything be excluded?

It wouldn't.

The idea that 'God' knows all but 'all' is only certain things limits the whole concept.

I agree.

 

[Willamena]

Sure, this omniscient god would know what uncertainty is - it would have the understanding that uncertainty is a state of not being sure of something, but it wouldn't ever be uncertain, as knowledge of everything excludes any uncertainty. I can't tell whether you're being facetious or not, as usual.

Again, I think you need to start over from the fact that "knowing uncertainty" isn't a statement on knowledge, but on a state of being. Omniscient means knowing everything, not being everything.

What does it mean to know a thing as a state? If I said I was in a state of frembolikma, would you know 'frembolikma' from my statement? Would you 'understand' at all?

I submit that this 'God' does not know the state of uncertainty unless it has been uncertain.

I also submit that in the scenario it must know it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Additionally, a query such as would a god who knows everything know what it's like to not know something?, falls into the same category as would an omnipotent god be able to make a rock so big he couldn't lift it?

These are semantical games and logical sleight-of-hand, not intellectually honest comments on the state of a being with infinite qualities.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What does it mean to know a thing as a state? If I said I was in a state of frembolikma, would you know 'frembolikma' from my statement? Would you 'understand' at all?

If I were omnipotent I would.

I submit that this 'God' does not know the state of uncertainty unless it has been uncertain.

I disagree. What the heck does "knowing the state" of something mean? Speak clearly.

I also submit that in the scenario it must know it.

I disagree.

 

[Willamena]

Additionally, a query such as would a god who knows everything know what it's like to not know something?, falls into the same category as would an omnipotent god be able to make a rock so big he couldn't lift it?

These are semantical games and logical sleight-of-hand, not intellectually honest comments on the state of a being with infinite qualities.

If this 'God' is exempt from knowing 'states' then the set of 'everything' is incomplete, to say the least.

It's not semantical. A 'state' is a mode of being.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If this 'God' is exempt from knowing 'states' then the set of 'everything' is incomplete, to say the least.

It's not semantical. A 'state' is a mode of being.

Right, like I said before, omniscient means knowing everything, not being everything.

I'm not rich, nor have I ever been rich, but not even being omniscient, I know what the state of being rich is.

 

[Willamena]

Right, like I said before, omniscient means knowing everything, not being everything.

That's where omnipresence comes in. 'God' is everything. That's why it knows everything.