Omniscience + Creator = No Free Will

[Mister Emu]

And I reject outright that I, in any way, implied god chose ‘best creation development’

Then it is not a necessary conclusion of omniscience and creation that our actions are determined by God...

I think you have it backwards here. God, through omniscience and creating, determined our actions rather than the other way about.

I disagree... and that I can disagree, within reason, shows that your conclusion is not necessary(not to say that your conclusion is necessarily faulty, but it is not a clear product of the premises...)

Where did imply this to be the case??????

If, as I content, God's knowledge of our actions is a product of our having acted, then for God to have determined our actions to suit His will, He would have had to produce other scenarios wherein we acted differently to determine which one He would create.

The flaw here is that the future will come to exist

That is not a problem at all, as whether or not the situation will change they are currently(under this theory which I hapen to disagree with) in the same category, that of not existing.

 

[themadhair]

"All information" does not include information which does not exist.

This begs the question of whether information, in and of itself, exists. It also begs the question of how information concerning the future does not exist given that the future will eventually become the present. If there is information that is unobtainable, and such information is not logically inconsistent, then the term omniscience doesn’t make any sense. One liners aren’t helping here Strom.

Are you also of the opinion that being unable to mak a square circle negates omnipotence?

Do you really want me to explain why this analogy is false?

Then it is not a necessary conclusion of omniscience and creation that our actions are determined by God...

Let me get this straight. You ascribe, to me, a claim that god played a series of experiments to creation. And when I object to ascribing this claim to me you retort with this total non-sequtier????

I disagree... and that I can disagree, within reason, shows that your conclusion is not necessary

Disagreeing with a conclusion, without demonstrating the falsity of the argument itself, doesn’t make the argument false. Particularly when your alternative requires the negation of one or more of the premises.

If, as I content, God's knowledge of our actions is a product of our having acted, then for God to have determined our actions to suit His will, He would have had to produce other scenarios wherein we acted differently to determine which one He would create.

How many times have you neglected one of the premises to cast doubt on the sufficiency of the other? Why are you doing this when the OP clearly requires both premises, and I have repeatedly mentioned that fact?

That is not a problem at all, as whether or not the situation will change they are currently(under this theory which I hapen to disagree with) in the same category, that of not existing.

I repeat – “ The flaw here is that the future will come to exist whereas the same is not true for unicorns.”. But if what you claim regarding the impossibility of future knowledge were true then omniscience is a false concept. If one can point to a subset of knowledge that one doesn’t know then one doesn’t know everything. And you really can’t define ‘everything’ to be a subset of everything.

 

[Storm]

This begs the question of whether information, in and of itself, exists.

I'm not in the mood for semantic games.

One liners aren’t helping here Strom.

Just because I don't feel the need to write a novel when a sentence will do does reduce my argument to "one liners." I'm trying to put a simple proposition into simple terms. Apparently, it still escapes you.

Do you really want me to explain why this analogy is false?

You're welcome to try, it might provide some entertainment. The fact that we can conceive of something outside the limitations of omni-whatever does not negate the concept.

 

[themadhair]

I'm not in the mood for semantic games.

Really? Sure about that?

You're welcome to try, it might provide some entertainment.

Because your analogy referred to an illogical proposition whereas foreknowledge isn’t illogical. Was that entertaining?

The fact that we can conceive of something outside the limitations of omni-whatever does not negate the concept.

You have yet to demonstrate that the conception of foreknowledge is beyond the limitations of omniscience. I’ve argued that since this conception represents knowledge it falls under omniscience. Care to throw another one-liner at the problem?

 

[Storm]

Really? Sure about that?

Quite.

Because your analogy referred to an illogical proposition whereas foreknowledge isn’t illogical. Was that entertaining?

"All knowledge must include knowledge that does not exist" is quite illogical.

You have yet to demonstrate that the conception of foreknowledge is beyond the limitations of omniscience.

And you have yet to demonstrate that it must.

I’ve argued that since this conception represents knowledge it falls under omniscience.

Unless it doesn't.

Care to throw another one-liner at the problem?

If my posting style bothers you so much, stop talking to me. Don't carry on a conversation and waste my time whining about it.

 

[themadhair]

"All knowledge must include knowledge that does not exist" is quite illogical.

How does this knowledge not exist? You are opening up an major debating point here by claiming that knowledge can ‘exist’ in some way. To my mind knowledge can only exist if it is known – rendering your comment pointless tautology.

And you have yet to demonstrate that it must.

It sort of seems to follow from the definition. Knowing everything means to know everything. There cannot be a gap in knowledge in order to know everything. Not having foreknowledge would be a gap in knowledge. What am I missing here?

Unless it doesn't.

How insightful.

If my posting style bothers you so much, stop talking to me. Don't carry on a conversation and waste my time whining about it.

I might consider that. You don’t seem to be adding anything to the conversation apart from cantankerous non-witticisms.

 

[Storm]

How does this knowledge not exist? You are opening up an major debating point here by claiming that knowledge can ‘exist’ in some way. To my mind knowledge can only exist if it is known – rendering your comment pointless tautology.

It can only exist if the future is already written, and if that's the case, we don't have free will regardless of whether what's predestined is known.

It sort of seems to follow from the definition. Knowing everything means to know everything. There cannot be a gap in knowledge in order to know everything. Not having foreknowledge would be a gap in knowledge. What am I missing here?

It's only a gap if the knowledge exists, and is unknown.

I might consider that. You don’t seem to be adding anything to the conversation apart from cantankerous non-witticisms.

Your inability to comprehend my very simple point does not render it worthless.

 

[themadhair]

It can only exist if the future is already written, and if that's the case, we don't have free will regardless of whether what's predestined is known.

This is one consequence of an omniscient creator as per the OP.

It's only a gap if the knowledge exists, and is unknown.

Care to elaborate on knowledge and how such does and does not exist?
I can’t see how knowledge can exist unless it is known. This seems a purely tautological point and I don’t the connection to omniscience here.

Your inability to comprehend my very simple point does not render it worthless.

Lovely. Really managed to articulate that ‘simple point’ there.

 

[Shahzad]

If we define omniscience as having all knowledge of all that exists, then if the future does NOT yet exist then knowledge of the future isn't necessary for omniscience. However omniscience as it is traditionally defined includes perfect knowledge of the future, indeed this was a defining characteristic of God's perfect knowledge. Gods or not, if the future really existed then the universe is fundamentally deterministic rather than random or self-deterministic and there is no free will.

In Islam which I know best out of the major religions, the divine decree (fate) is one of the articles of faith.

 

[Storm]

If we define omniscience as having all knowledge of all that exists, then if the future does NOT yet exist then knowledge of the future isn't necessary for omniscience.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[Dunemeister]

Yes necessarily.

Ah, the old "gainsay what the opponent says, thereby simultaneously demonstrating the superiority of your position and the stupidity of your opponent. Nicely done. Kudos.

Then omniscience isn’t a valid concept because there would be things that cannot be known. I really don’t buy your attempt to avoid contradicting omniscience while portraying the future as being unknowable.

First, omniscience means that someone knows everything it is logically possible to know. If it's not logically possible to know the future, then not knowing the future wouldn't make someone not omniscient.

Consider a parallel with omnipotence. Is God not omnipotent if he cannot create a rock so large that he cannot lift it? Of course not. Not even God can do the inherently absurd or what is self-contradictory. So we don't take that "inability" of God to count against his omnipotence. Instead, we say that omnipotence simply means that God can do whatever is logically possible to accomplish. Similarly with omniscience. Omniscience means that God can know whatever it is logically possible to know.

Second, I'm not advocating the view that propositions about the future have no truth value. I'm merely pointing out that your assumption that they can be true or false is controversial and in fact many philosophers dispute the idea. You should therefore provide some argument for believing that future-oriented propositions have a truth value (or at least can have one).

I disagree. That something cannot be known to god renders god not omniscient. I can’t put it in any simpler terms.

Perhaps that's because you're being too simplistic?

 

[Mister Emu]

Let me get this straight. You ascribe, to me, a claim that god played a series of experiments to creation. And when I object to ascribing this claim to me you retort with this total non-sequtier

It is a simple thing, you agreed with me that God does not choose amongst various scenarios for creation... that leaves open the possibility of free will...

Disagreeing with a conclusion, without demonstrating the falsity of the argument itself, doesn’t make the argument false. Particularly when your alternative requires the negation of one or more of the premises.

I am arguing an alternative that allows P1 Omniscience, and P2 Creator, to not equal C No free will. If there is an acceptable alternative, then the arguement is not compelling. I rejected none of the premises... God creates, and through His eternal omnipresence, He is omniscient, that is He knows everything there is to know.

How many times have you neglected one of the premises to cast doubt on the sufficiency of the other? Why are you doing this when the OP clearly requires both premises, and I have repeatedly mentioned that fact?

Which premise did I reject? I have stated multiple times that God is omniscient, and that God is the creator...

I repeat – “ The flaw here is that the future will come to exist whereas the same is not true for unicorns.”.

And again... that is no flaw. Any future change does nothing to affect the current one. If the future does not exist, it is in the same category as unicorns. If you expect an omniscient being to know one non-existant bit of information, to remain consistent, you must expect that being to also know all other non-existant information...

 

[McBell]

I didn’t.

Yes you did.
In fact, you have to in order to come to the conclusion you did.

Seems to me that to be all knowing {insert noun here} would know every single result from every single possible choice that is ever presented.

In order to reach your conclusion, you have to limit all knowing to the results of the choices that were made and have to ignore all the other possible results. You know, all the other possible results from every single choice that an all knowing {insert noun here} would ALSO know about.

 

[themadhair]

If we define omniscience as having all knowledge of all that exists, then if the future does NOT yet exist then knowledge of the future isn't necessary for omniscience.

This is perfectly true. But I don’t see why people can suddenly redefine what omniscience means in this way. All-knowing is pretty unambiguous I though.

First, omniscience means that someone knows everything it is logically possible to know.

How is foreknowledge illogical anyhow? I haven’t seen established and really don’t see how it is illogical or contradictory.

Consider a parallel with omnipotence. Is God not omnipotent if he cannot create a rock so large that he cannot lift it?

This is like the immoveable wall and unstoppable object. In this case these concepts are definitionally contradictory. Their very definitions logically contradict each other – I do not see the parallel between this and foreknowledge.

Omniscience means that God can know whatever it is logically possible to know.

I do not see the logical contradiction in the concept of foreknowledge. How is the idea logically inconsistent?

You should therefore provide some argument for believing that future-oriented propositions have a truth value (or at least can have one).

I think this follows from the concept of omniscience. If future orientated propositions cannot have a truth value then omniscience, as a concept, fails. What you have done is to essentially redefine omniscience to be the set absolute knowledge less foreknowledge.

There is also a claim being made that omniscience only covers knowledge that ‘exists’. I consider knowledge to be similar to concepts in that they only ‘exist’ when they are known. A concept doesn’t exist until someone or something conceives that concept. If this line of reasoning is true then the existence or non-existence of knowledge is tautology.

Perhaps that's because you're being too simplistic?

All-knowing seems a pretty simple concept to me. At the moment you are making the claim that future knowledge is illogical in some way. Care to elaborate on that in case I am missing something?

It is a simple thing, you agreed with me that God does not choose amongst various scenarios for creation... that leaves open the possibility of free will...

Firstly, I didn’t agree with this. I merely rejected your ascribing of a claim to me that I never made. I am not making any declaration of god’s intentions or lack thereof. I don’t think it matters either way.

Secondly, god still created. Whether or not that was a ‘choice’ in some way or not doesn’t change that it was an act of creation to set the ball rolling.

I am arguing an alternative that allows P1 Omniscience, and P2 Creator, to not equal C No free will.

So far you have done this only be redefining omniscience to be something other than all-knowing.

Which premise did I reject? I have stated multiple times that God is omniscient, and that God is the creator...

My apologies on this. I confused you with Dunemeister. You only did it once.

If the future does not exist, it is in the same category as unicorns.

I have already pointed out the important difference here.

If you expect an omniscient being to know one non-existant bit of information, to remain consistent, you must expect that being to also know all other non-existant information...

As pointed out previously, foreknowledge is very different from unicorns because one can have an actual truth value (to use your phrase) and the other (assuming unicorns do not, never have and never will exist) doesn’t. A proposition about the future will be shown to be false or true – the same cannot be said for your unicorn analogy. Constructing an analogy that cannot have a truth value (assuming unicorns are always fictional) cannot be compared to something you have failed to demonstrate also has a truth value.

In order to reach your conclusion, you have to limit all knowing to the results of the choices that were made and have to ignore all the other possible results.

Two things:

Firstly, you are assuming that those ‘other possible results’ are possibilities. I do think that, assuming the premises of omniscience and creator, there is only one possible course of results. And that is the course that the omniscient creator knows.

Secondly, I don’t see the contradiction in your idea. Assuming those possible choices were possible - why wouldn’t an omniscient being know all those choices AND the choices that will be chosen? The set of possible choices plus the set of choices that will be made would seem to be compatible with knowing everything. I don’t see the reason you think the OP placed limits on omniscience.

 

[MoonWater]

I do not see the logical contradiction in the concept of foreknowledge. How is the idea logically inconsistent?

The future does not exist and strictly speaking will never exist as when it does come into existence it will be the present or the past and no longer the future. Since the future doesn't exist why should forknowledge be necessary for omniscience?(and again I'm using the term "foreknowledge" for lack of a better word. I fail to see how and you still have yet to explain how "knowledge of the future" is even logically possible to possess.)

I think this follows from the concept of omniscience. If future orientated propositions cannot have a truth value then omniscience, as a concept, fails. What you have done is to essentially redefine omniscience to be the set absolute knowledge less foreknowledge.

So unless omniscience fits precisely into your definition of omniscience it is no longer omniscience? Can you explain why omniscience fails as a concept if future things have no truth value(And I agree with dunmeister, they don't have truth value as future things do not exist yet. How can that which does not exist have any truth value to it?)

There is also a claim being made that omniscience only covers knowledge that ‘exists’. I consider knowledge to be similar to concepts in that they only ‘exist’ when they are known. A concept doesn’t exist until someone or something conceives that concept. If this line of reasoning is true then the existence or non-existence of knowledge is tautology.

You've yet to explain how knowledge actual knowledge as in accurately predicting 100% what will happen, of the future can exist in someone's mind.

As pointed out previously, foreknowledge is very different from unicorns because one can have an actual truth value (to use your phrase) and the other (assuming unicorns do not, never have and never will exist) doesn’t. A proposition about the future will be shown to be false or true – the same cannot be said for your unicorn analogy. Constructing an analogy that cannot have a truth value (assuming unicorns are always fictional) cannot be compared to something you have failed to demonstrate also has a truth value.

How can the future have "truth value"? It doesn't exist and when it does come into existence it's no longer the future it's the present. Why should the future existence of something have any truth value when it doesn't currently exist? To say that the future has truth value to it is to say we live in a deterministic universe, that everything that is going to happen is already going to happen and nothing can be done, hence there would be no free will, not because of god's omniscience but because of the deterministic qualities of the universe. If the universe is not deterministic then the future is not "set in stone" until it actually happens. Just like Master Yoda said "always in motion is the future." How can something that is "always in motion" have any truth about it?

 

[spacejanitor]

If god existed and were an omniscient creator then I contend we have no free will. God would know the future course of any creation by its omniscience. Thus, in the act of creation god determined the future course of that creation. Because god created, and knew the future course of that creation from ‘before’ (doesn’t make much sense but you get the idea) it created, we cannot have free will.

Discuss.

Of course we are given free will. We are able to choose what ever we want. God allows us to make choices both good and bad. We have consequences for both. And God knows that. It is our choice to choose which path we will lead. God made us in his image, but he didn't want robots. He wanted us to see, him out. By choice.

 

[CarlinKnew]

You've yet to explain how knowledge actual knowledge as in accurately predicting 100% what will happen, of the future can exist in someone's mind.

An omniscient mind knows the outcome of all future events with absolute certainty by knowing all properties/procedures/relationships of the universe with absolute certainty.

 

[themadhair]

Since the future doesn't exist why should forknowledge be necessary for omniscience?

Because being ‘all-knowing’ involves knowing everything. Knowledge of future events seems to be knowledge.

So unless omniscience fits precisely into your definition of omniscience it is no longer omniscience?

My definition is “all-knowing”. If one is not “all-knowing” then one is not omniscient.

Can you explain why omniscience fails as a concept if future things have no truth value?

Because it would render the concept of “all-knowing” impossible. If there is things unknown and unknowable then “all-knowing” is trivally false.

How can that which does not exist have any truth value to it?

The future and knowledge of the future are different things. For example, the past doesn’t exist but knowledge of the past does exist (did I mention I don’t like applying the term exist to knowledge?).

You've yet to explain how knowledge actual knowledge as in accurately predicting 100% what will happen, of the future can exist in someone's mind.

I’m arguing that this follows from omniscience.

To say that the future has truth value to it is to say we live in a deterministic universe, that everything that is going to happen is already going to happen and nothing can be done, hence there would be no free will, not because of god's omniscience but because of the deterministic qualities of the universe.

I believe that determinism stems from the OP’s premises. In the above you considered the omniscience but neglected the creator aspect.

How can something that is "always in motion" have any truth about it?

This may seem anal but bear with me. A thing, and knowledge regarding that thing, are different. The future doesn’t have a truth value since it makes no sense to assign a truth value to it – but knowledge of the future may have a truth value. I think I understand what you are saying but it is possible that the conflation of the future with knowledge of the future is making me misunderstand some of your argument.

 

[themadhair]

An omniscient mind knows the outcome of all future events with absolute certainty by knowing all properties/procedures/relationships of the universe with absolute certainty.

I disagree that knowing the properties/procedures/relationships is sufficient to know the future. Newtonian mechanics, for example, isn’t deterministic in and of itself. I don’t believe that omniscience on its own is sufficient for determinism.

 

[spacejanitor]

I disagree that knowing the properties/procedures/relationships is sufficient to know the future. Newtonian mechanics, for example, isn’t deterministic in and of itself. I don’t believe that omniscience on its own is sufficient for determinism.

It's still freewill. We are allowed to make choices. Look, if you are at a stop light and just blindly go thru the intersection you are most likely going to get clobbered especially when traffic is present. That is a choice and you know the potential consequences. Just as it is equally possible to not get hit while waiting for your light to turn green, another choice. However, with each choice is a set of consequences intended or not.

Matt