Predestination is irrelevant, God's omniscience destroys our free will

Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Predestination is irrelevant, God's omniscience destroys our free will

I have been thinking alot about this lately - if the Christian God's omniscience includes 100% knowledge of all future events, does this not render us unable to make our own choices?  Think about it this way - I cannot choose to do something contrary to what God knows will happen.  I could try or want to do something that is contrary to what God knows will happen, but I will fail because I cannot contradict what God knows for sure will happen - thoughts anybody, especially Christians?


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
This subject has been

This subject has been touched on many times before.. I'll say my thoughts again.

You either have free will or you do not.  If you do have free will, perfect knowledge will not "destroy it."  Q: Is someone's freewill affected by the degree someone finds them predictable? If no, then I would suggest that the freewill remains the same even as predictability approaches "perfectly predictable" (i.e., how an omniscient being would probably view everyone).

Now.. a more valid argument might be that "a being that at the time he/she created the world had both omnipotence (constrained to do only those things that are logically possible) and omniscience could not have created freewill"--but that's a different road entirely.  The existence of an omniscient, alone, does not affect freewill, IMO.

 

 

 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:This

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
This subject has been touched on many times before.. I'll say my thoughts again.

You either have free will or you do not.  If you do have free will, perfect knowledge will not "destroy it."  Q: Is someone's freewill affected by the degree someone finds them predictable? If no, then I would suggest that the freewill remains the same even as predictability approaches "perfectly predictable" (i.e., how an omniscient being would probably view everyone).

Now.. a more valid argument might be that "a being that at the time he/she created the world had both omnipotence (constrained to do only those things that are logically possible) and omniscience could not have created freewill"--but that's a different road entirely.  The existence of an omniscient, alone, does not affect freewill, IMO.

Let's see:

False dichotomy: It's possible to have "partial" free will where some decisions are your own and others are made for you.

Predictions are different from knowledge. However, if an omniscient creature knows what decisions you are going to make, then you can't have free-will as you're making pre-ordained choices. If a person can perfectly predict your decisions then you don't have free-will as your decision process is following a pre-defined decision tree. Predictions need patterns to be accurate, and patterned thinking is not free will. (Shy of someone being willfully predictable, of course.)

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:False dichotomy: It's

Quote:
False dichotomy: It's possible to have "partial" free will where some decisions are your own and others are made for you.

Example of this?  Because to me the concept of "'partial' free will" has always seemed sort of meaningless to me.. "will" does not equal "decision".. and so to say that "some decisions can be made for you and others are not" doesn't really help me to understand. 

Quote:
Predictions are different from knowledge.

Predictions are a type of knowledge, agreed. 

Quote:
However, if an omniscient creature knows what decisions you are going to make, then you can't have free-will as you're making pre-ordained choices.

"Pre-ordained" implies pre-ordination.  How can mere "omniscience" "pre-ordain" something? At least.. how I understand the idea of "predaination," one must be with power to "ordain," not merely an observer... which.. is all "omniscience" really implies.

Quote:
If a person can perfectly predict your decisions then you don't have free-will as your decision process is following a pre-defined decision tree.

Same contention as I made above.

Quote:
Predictions need patterns to be accurate

Agreed.

Quote:
. . . and patterned thinking is not free will. (Shy of someone being willfully predictable, of course.)

If free will, then can be willfully predictable.

If willfully predictable, then patterned thinking.

Follows that, if free will then can be patterned thinking.

 

So.. I guess I don't understand what basis you have for the statement that "patterned thinking is not free will."

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I think of it this way,

I think of it this way, "what difference does it make? .... Answer: None,  zero. It's nearly a worthless question ....


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:Example

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Example of this?  Because to me the concept of "'partial' free will" has always seemed sort of meaningless to me.. "will" does not equal "decision".. and so to say that "some decisions can be made for you and others are not" doesn't really help me to understand.
What is "will" if not making your own decisions?

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Quote:
Predictions are different from knowledge.
Predictions are a type of knowledge, agreed.
That isn't what I said. I said predictions are different from knowledge. Predictions are using knowledge to foresee the future.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
"Pre-ordained" implies pre-ordination.  How can mere "omniscience" "pre-ordain" something? At least.. how I understand the idea of "predaination," one must be with power to "ordain," not merely an observer... which.. is all "omniscience" really implies.
You can not know the future unless the future is preordained. If the future could take many paths, then you can't know it, only know possibilities. That would no longer be omniscience. Oddly, preordination does not require an ordainer, just a schema with no variables.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Quote:
If a person can perfectly predict your decisions then you don't have free-will as your decision process is following a pre-defined decision tree.
Same contention as I made above.
what? Seems to me to be the opposite.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Quote:
. . . and patterned thinking is not free will. (Shy of someone being willfully predictable, of course.)
If free will, then can be willfully predictable.

If willfully predictable, then patterned thinking.

Follows that, if free will then can be patterned thinking.

I OMITTED willfull predictability with "Shy of", OK?

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
So.. I guess I don't understand what basis you have for the statement that "patterned thinking is not free will."
Because if one is making decisions based on a set algorithm one isn't operating with free will.

Again, I'm specifically omitting the idea that one can decide to operate on a fixed algorithm and have free will because of the potential to decide to not to be predictable anymore. Unless you want to go to the extreme that the algorithm precludes that, then one could say one used to have free will and no longer does.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan wrote:I have

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

I have been thinking alot about this lately - if the Christian God's omniscience includes 100% knowledge of all future events, does this not render us unable to make our own choices?  Think about it this way - I cannot choose to do something contrary to what God knows will happen.  I could try or want to do something that is contrary to what God knows will happen, but I will fail because I cannot contradict what God knows for sure will happen - thoughts anybody, especially Christians?

If you are a person that believes in the concept of Hell as described in the Christian bible (and elsewhere), then not only is predestination irrelevant but god's omniscience as well. At least insofar as free will is concerned.

When any god offers up a place of eternal torment, torture and damnation should you bend or break her commandments or fail to love some sacrifice she has made or fail in any other way, that isn't free will. It's called coercion.

From wiktionary....  COERCION=  Use of physical or moral force to compel a person to do something, or to abstain from doing something, thereby depriving that person of the exercise of free will.

From Cambridge... COERCION=  using force to cause something to occur; the act of enforcing; the act of compelling in order to bring about a behavior desired by the one or authority.

From Merriam... COERCION = the act, process or power of coercing. To acheive by force or threat and in the process removing free will.

 


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:I

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

I think of it this way, "what difference does it make? .... Answer: None,  zero. It's nearly a worthless question ....

It makes alot of difference - if I can't make my own choices, I see myself as a very depressing being who is constrained to the choices that the Christian God knows I will make.  Following this reasoning, I can't even choose whether I'm "saved" or not.  I could believe in God, the Bible, etc., and try to be saved, but if God knows I will go to hell then I will go no matter what I want or try.

Back to my original point though, knowledge that a certain event will happen increases as the amount of pre-determination of this event increases.  It would seem that since God knows 100% what I will do tomorrow, it has been pre-determined in some way.

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan wrote:Back

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

Back to my original point though, knowledge that a certain event will happen increases as the amount of pre-determination of this event increases.  It would seem that since God knows 100% what I will do tomorrow, it has been pre-determined in some way.

When I was a Christian I was taught that only God knows who is saved. So one must follow the way of God to be included. You supposedly had a free choice to obey or not. Taking the position that it doesn't matter as it has been predetermined then doing whatever you choose especially against the perceived way of God would result in your permanent separation from him. The way out for this dichotomy is you must do all the right things in order to be included in those that are saved. It was assumed that you didn't know everything so you had no way to determine for sure if you were in the book of those being saved or not. Therefore if you blatantly disregarded the rules set forth by God you were certain to not be included. So one must follow his way. Granted no one knows for sure what that means because of the contradictory dogma of religions but all have clear paths (or so they claim) for those that fail to follow God's way. So the predetermination means only God would know so in the words of Heinlein, sure the game is rigged but if you don't play you can't win. So God knowing who wins is not a factor to you. All you need to assure you are probably included is follow the rules. Though that's the problem isn't it? Which rules?

Since there is no one on Earth  has the information of what will occur in the future then from this perspective nothing is preordained. It's like a rigged game where only the person who rigged it knows who will win. So does this prevent free will? I say yes, but theists argue you don't have to play the game. This means your destiny is a guaranteed loser, though again they will claim only God knows for certain.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
I've never really been one

I've never really been one to accept that fate exists. Fate, like kharma, implies some mystical force in the universe and just religious hooey like all the made up gods. However, if a personal god exists and there is some sort of judgement someday it is beyond our control rather or not we are "saved".

The theist arguement of freewill is irrelevent. If your fate is known by an omniscient being that you will reject it then what inclination would that being have to give you a nudge in the "right" direction? Just like in the Matrix Reloaded the oracle offering Neo the candy. If he was going to turn it down she wouldn't have offered it to him, therefore he took it.

Personally, I think we make too much of the freewill concept as atheists. The actuallity is a little more convoluted in real life. I will either accept some form of religion later on in my life or I will not. The god of the bible, if it is all-knowing, would not even bother attempt to make itself known to anyone if it knew it would be rejected. I've heard people state that god tries to woo all people, but this is an idiotic statement if you also believe god is all-knowing. If by predestination you mean some form of "fate" then I would say that this is not an irrelevent concept and the supposed god's omniscience does not really impact freewill as I see it.  

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:What is "will" if not

Quote:
What is "will" if not making your own decisions?

"Will," as I understand it, is merely wish or desire... it leads to decisions, but it is not a decision in and of itself.  E.g., "I may will to escape prison, but that does not mean that I have decided to or chosen to do so.  I may have chosen or decided to stay right there in prison."

Quote:
That isn't what I said. I said predictions are different from knowledge. Predictions are using knowledge to foresee the future.

I know that's not what you said, but it is what you could have meant.. and so I agreed to your statement if that was what you meant.

I don't know why you have to argue with what I said.  "Predictions" may be using knowledge to foresee the future.. but that does not mean that they are not knowledge in and of themselves.  "I predict tomorrow it will be sunny."  My prediction was formed based upon other knowledge I had, but is now a form of knowledge itself (def. 3, 4, 6).

knowl·edge     Audio Help   /ˈnɒlɪdʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[nol-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.    acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2.    familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3.    acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4.    the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5.    awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
6.    something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
7.    the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8.    the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
9.    Archaic. sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.

Quote:
You can not know the future unless the future is preordained. If the future could take many paths, then you can't know it, only know possibilities.


I'm thinking in math terms... so when you say "possibilities" I immediately think probability.  Certainly certain possibilities have more or less probability.  Those probabilities increase or decrease based upon a multitude of factors. 

So.. if you can know possibilities without affecting freewill, and that freewill is not affected by the degree to which you know the probabilities of actions, how can it be affected when someone "knows" that the probability of one action over another is 1 to 0.

If I know that the chances that you say yes to a question is 999.999k/1000k and no is 1/1000k, is your freewill any less diminished then if it was 50/50?

If it is not.. then neither would knowledge that there is a 1/10^10000000000 chance that you will not choose anything but what I think will choose.

If that is true.. then, logic would suggest, that neither would 1/infinite (perfectly predictable) chance that you will not choose anything but what I think you will choose. 

I would contend that the last example is effectively the same as omniscience... yet framed in terms of probability of possibilities.. with no effect on freewill.

Quote:
Oddly, preordination does not require an ordainer, just a schema with no variables.

I would disagree. 

Preordination requires that it was preordained.  Preordained is a verb that requires an actor.  That actor, whether a person or not, is the "ordainer."

Just semantics though.. and may be wrong.

Quote:
I OMITTED willfull predictability with "Shy of", OK?

Not sure what you mean here.. maybe I misunderstood something before.

Quote:
Because if one is making decisions based on a set algorithm one isn't operating with free will.  Again, I'm specifically omitting the idea that one can decide to operate on a fixed algorithm and have free will because of the potential to decide to not to be predictable anymore.

As much as he would have the free will to decide to be predictable always.

Quote:
Unless you want to go to the extreme that the algorithm precludes that, then one could say one used to have free will and no longer does.

I really am failing to understand how you seem to allow for "free will" to choose anything *but* to live life according to a fixed algorithm--as you say, if one does choose that, he no longer has free will.

I just don't understand this, sorry.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan wrote:I AM

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

I think of it this way, "what difference does it make? .... Answer: None,  zero. It's nearly a worthless question ....

It makes alot of difference - if I can't make my own choices, I see myself as a very depressing being who is constrained to the choices that the Christian God knows I will make.  Following this reasoning, I can't even choose whether I'm "saved" or not.  I could believe in God, the Bible, etc., and try to be saved, but if God knows I will go to hell then I will go no matter what I want or try.

Back to my original point though, knowledge that a certain event will happen increases as the amount of pre-determination of this event increases.  It would seem that since God knows 100% what I will do tomorrow, it has been pre-determined in some way.

Well, you've just made my point. Read some, "Condemned to be Free" Sartre , related essays on line.

    Of course I don't relate any of this to the "god of abe" bull, and instead of depressing me, I just laugh. Anyway you add it up, our personal and combined decisions obviously make a huge difference. Get into the groove, why ask why? Ask how .....

Everything is more of a science question for me, as in the laws of physics or nature. Freewill discussions, while a bit amusing, have never led me to any usable wisdom. It's a bit like using probabilities to prove a god deity or creator.

  .... and a buddha laughed when asked about a religious g-o-d !  ... And a story Jesus said we are the "thingy", as did many others !   


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Freewill discussions,

Quote:
Freewill discussions, while a bit amusing, have never led me to any usable wisdom. It's a bit like using probabilities to prove a god deity or creator.

Agreed. Smiling


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote: I'm

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

I'm thinking in math terms... so when you say "possibilities" I immediately think probability.  Certainly certain possibilities have more or less probability.  Those probabilities increase or decrease based upon a multitude of factors. 

So.. if you can know possibilities without affecting freewill, and that freewill is not affected by the degree to which you know the probabilities of actions, how can it be affected when someone "knows" that the probability of one action over another is 1 to 0.

If I know that the chances that you say yes to a question is 999.999k/1000k and no is 1/1000k, is your freewill any less diminished then if it was 50/50?

If it is not.. then neither would knowledge that there is a 1/10^10000000000 chance that you will not choose anything but what I think will choose.

If that is true.. then, logic would suggest, that neither would 1/infinite (perfectly predictable) chance that you will not choose anything but what I think you will choose. 

I would contend that the last example is effectively the same as omniscience... yet framed in terms of probability of possibilities.. with no effect on freewill.

That's the catch.  My free will is fine until the knowledge that I will do something hits the 100% mark.  Surely a being such as the God of the bible would have a very good idea of what you would do in the future even if he didn't have 100% knowledge of future events, but the point is that if he knows 100%, it has been predetermined.  We here on earth cannot "know" anything for sure (in the fullest sense of the word), but we can have reasonable belief in things.  If the God of the bible had only a reasonable belief our free will would be fine.  Sadly though, this does not seem to be the case.

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:That's the catch.  My

Quote:
That's the catch.  My free will is fine until the knowledge that I will do something hits the 100% mark.  Surely a being such as the God of the bible would have a very good idea of what you would do in the future even if he didn't have 100% knowledge of future events, but the point is that if he knows 100%, it has been predetermined.  We here on earth cannot "know" anything for sure (in the fullest sense of the word), but we can have reasonable belief in things.  If the God of the bible had only a reasonable belief our free will would be fine.  Sadly though, this does not seem to be the case.

freewill = 1

freewill/1% probability of an event happening = 1

freewill/50% probability of an event happening = 1

freewill/99.999.....% probability of an event happening = 1

ergo

freewill/(the probability of an event happening as it approaches 100%, i.e., 100% probability) = 1

//

If I understand what you're saying correctly.. you agree with the first parts.. but not the things after ergo.  To you, the correct answer would be:

freewill/(the probability of an event happening as it approaches 100%) = 0

//

Perhaps I don't understand calculus well enough (entirely possible).. but this would be equivalent of saying that

lim (1/0) = 0, approximately the same as saying, 1/0 = 0 (as opposed to the correct answer, which is infinity)

 


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
This may be overdoing it,

This may be overdoing it, but allow me to explain:

In the graph above, (y) 10 = freewill1, and (y) 0 = freewill0. As you stated in your previous comment, freewill1 = I have free will, and freewill0 = I do not have freewill.

The x-coordinate is God's % knowledge of future events, and the y-coordinate is my free will.

As the purple line "God's % knowledge" approaches 100%, free will remains at 1, even as the line approaches near/very close to 100%.

However, when a point's x-value = 100%, its y-value = 0, meaning that once the percentage of God's knowledge of future events attains 100%, my free will = 0.  Even if I have a sliver of a chance to do something different that what God presumes I will do, I have free will because I can choose what to do, even though God might have a (very) good belief of what I will do.  Highly unlikely events do occur - for example, on a rainy day, what were the chances that the number of raindrops that hit me were going to hit me when they first started out in a cloud, and what were the chances that they would hit me at the exact time and place that they did?  There are also other highly unlikely events that still occur, such as very rare diseases, giving hope to the fact that even if the odds that I would choose to do something were 1/999,999,999,999, I could still choose to do it.

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
I understand what your

I understand what you're saying--I think my summary of how I explained what you were saying was accurate.

That does not mean that I think it makes sense, IMO.  Can you give an example, other than what we are speaking of, in which two things (abstract or concrete, x and y) have a relationship where x has absolutely no affect on y as x approaches its upper limit, except that when x reaches its upper limit, y is eliminated.

To me.. your contention appears to be analogous to me saying "Me walking to the grocery store has absolutely no affect on you watching tv.  No matter how close I get to the grocery store, it will have no affect on you watching tv.  Nevertheless, when I reach the grocery store, you will be unable to watch tv."


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo, here's my read

RhadTheGizmo, here's my read of the argument:

If I could predict what anyone was going to do with 99.9999999999999999999% certainty then certainly I'd be able to say that I knew what they were going to do, even with the ridiculously small chance that they might do something else.  If I could do this for all people I'd be god - able to tell what anyone is going to do at any given time, but there's still the chance I'd be stymied by their free will.  Is this roughly it?

 

All well and good if you're looking for a cheap fix to the omniscience-free will problem but it still means that god isn't omniscient.  If I pick a definition of omniscience at random...

omniscience

1. universal or infinite knowledge.
2. the state of being all-knowing.

 

Therein lies the problem.  Even with the sorts of probabilities you're talking about a creature making predictions based on patterned behavior is not all-knowing, nor do they have universal/infinite knowledge.  If there's a chance they'll be wrong, regardless of how small the chance, they cannot be described as all-knowing.  They do not know everything.  They only know what is most likely, not what is.  Therefore the original dilemma stands - if God is omniscient free will does not exist,  if free will exists then god is not omniscient.

 

M

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah Mike, assuming some

Yeah Mike, assuming some perfert all knowing god thingy is so damn wacky, but I understand that wish , BUT even if such a thingy was , now what !    Seems that thingy ain't worried none, so why should we be worried ?     Heck, can't change the the laws of nature ..... not a prayer will do it .... 

"Condemned to be Free" .... damn, wish there was a cool sky daddy ..... oh well, here I AM, doing my life sentence !  Glad them girls are here too , and all the stuff of this world ..... Can we get along some day ? ..... Gosh, think about the kids  .... Why scare them ???? 

Hug a tree , they are our friends too .....


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Therein lies the

Quote:
Therein lies the problem.  Even with the sorts of probabilities you're talking about a creature making predictions based on patterned behavior is not all-knowing, nor do they have universal/infinite knowledge.  If there's a chance they'll be wrong, regardless of how small the chance, they cannot be described as all-knowing.  They do not know everything.  They only know what is most likely, not what is.  Therefore the original dilemma stands - if God is omniscient free will does not exist,  if free will exists then god is not omniscient.

Missing the point.  "Knowing" can be framed as a function of probabilities, i.e., 100% probability that X will happen.  If probability never has an effect on the concept of freewill as it approaches 100%, how could it when it reaches 100%?  I just want an example.. other than what we're talking about.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan wrote:I have

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

I have been thinking alot about this lately - if the Christian God's omniscience includes 100% knowledge of all future events, does this not render us unable to make our own choices?  Think about it this way - I cannot choose to do something contrary to what God knows will happen.  I could try or want to do something that is contrary to what God knows will happen, but I will fail because I cannot contradict what God knows for sure will happen - thoughts anybody, especially Christians?

It doesn't matter. IAGAY is right. And here's why:

You can never know for certain that you do or do not have this "free will". This isn't even a matter of the Abrahamic deity, but simply material physics: Decisions are cascading electrochemical sequences processing through your brain as the result of the aggregate stimuli you have experienced over the course of your life. As such, it can be argued that in the exact same situation (which includes having never been in the situation before, and so is untestable, as for the situation to be exactly the same, all of your prior experiences must be, as well), you will do the same thing, every time. Thus, no free will. It can also be argued that we can never truly assert that, because we cannot test it, and so you may have free will.

If there is no free will, then there is no personal responsibility. You could never be truly guilty of any crime, because you never had the capacity to not commit that crime. This is important, because society's function is built upon the idea that there is personal responsibility. With no responsibility, there is no impetus for anyone to abide by society's rules, because there is nothing to hold them to account. Fatalism, ultimately, is nihilism.

Thus: It does not matter if there is "Free Will" or if there is not. In either situation, we must proceed under the premise that we do have free will, and so personal responsibility. If this premise is correct, then it correctly informs our choices. If it is not, then being wrong is of no consequence, because we never truly had the option of being right: we were always fated to be wrong on that question. So the only reasonable option is to treat it as true, and accept that, as with everything else in existence, we can never really know we're right.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:Missing

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Missing the point.  "Knowing" can be framed as a function of probabilities, i.e., 100% probability that X will happen.  If probability never has an effect on the concept of freewill as it approaches 100%, how could it when it reaches 100%?  I just want an example.. other than what we're talking about.

From Wikipedia: Probability is the likelihood or chance that something is the case or will happen.

Saying "100% probability" is a contradiction, because probability is chance and 100% rules out all other alternatives.

For our example of this situation, let's say that my brother sets up a circular target in our backyard.  He stands 50ft away from it with his airsoft gun.  I stand ~25ft (the distances here are irrelevant) to the left of the target.  My body width = the width of the target.  As I move towards the target, his ability to shoot the target remains the same.  Even as I move in front of the target, his ability to shoot the target remains the same.  However, once I move in front of the target completely, his ability to shoot the target disappears, because it is completely covered.  In this scenario, my brother represents human beings, the target represents free will, and I represent God.

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Saying "100%

Quote:
Saying "100% probability" is a contradiction, because probability is chance and 100% rules out all other alternatives.

I would have to disagree.  I don't think the definition of probability makes the statement 100% probability a contradiction.

Quote:
For our example of this situation, let's say that my brother sets up a circular target in our backyard.  He stands 50ft away from it with his airsoft gun.  I stand ~25ft (the distances here are irrelevant) to the left of the target.  My body width = the width of the target.  As I move towards the target, his ability to shoot the target remains the same.  Even as I move in front of the target, his ability to shoot the target remains the same.  However, once I move in front of the target completely, his ability to shoot the target disappears, because it is completely covered.  In this scenario, my brother represents human beings, the target represents free will, and I represent God.

The way you present it.. makes it look like a 0/1 relationship.  But, I would contend it is not.  If you divide your movements between X (25ft away from the target) and Y (right in front of the target) into a group of infinitely small movements... many of those movements would entail "partially affecting his ability to block the target but not totally eliminating it."

For instance.. only the edge of your arm.. so that the bullet will graze the edge of your arm and the bullet will only sometimes hit the target.. or maybe only partially hit the target... thereby "his ability to shoot the target will not remain the same as you move towards 0 point."

Point being.. there are intermediary steps between 0 and 1 (his ability as affected by your movement) in your scenario, IMO.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Missing the point.  "Knowing" can be framed as a function of probabilities, i.e., 100% probability that X will happen.  If probability never has an effect on the concept of freewill as it approaches 100%, how could it when it reaches 100%?  I just want an example.. other than what we're talking about.

From Wikipedia: Probability is the likelihood or chance that something is the case or will happen.

Saying "100% probability" is a contradiction, because probability is chance and 100% rules out all other alternatives.

No, because 'chance' does not guarantee other alternatives. What is the chance that 1+1 will equal 2 at any given moment? 100%. This is still an expression of probability, even if it has reached the point of surety. There is no guarantee that any alternative will exist when expressing probability.

Quote:

For our example of this situation, let's say that my brother sets up a circular target in our backyard.  He stands 50ft away from it with his airsoft gun.  I stand ~25ft (the distances here are irrelevant) to the left of the target.  My body width = the width of the target.  As I move towards the target, his ability to shoot the target remains the same.  Even as I move in front of the target, his ability to shoot the target remains the same.  However, once I move in front of the target completely, his ability to shoot the target disappears, because it is completely covered.  In this scenario, my brother represents human beings, the target represents free will, and I represent God.

Not so. You're taking action to change his chances. That's different from simply having an awareness of whether or not he will succeed. One is active, the other passive.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:The way

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

The way you present it.. makes it look like a 0/1 relationship.  But, I would contend it is not.  If you divide your movements between X (25ft away from the target) and Y (right in front of the target) into a group of infinitely small movements... many of those movements would entail "partially affecting his ability to block the target but not totally eliminating it."

For instance.. only the edge of your arm.. so that the bullet will graze the edge of your arm and the bullet will only sometimes hit the target.. or maybe only partially hit the target... thereby "his ability to shoot the target will not remain the same as you move towards 0 point."

Point being.. there are intermediary steps between 0 and 1 (his ability as affected by your movement) in your scenario, IMO.

You're right.  But what you are talking about is chance, not ability.  My brother's chances of hitting the target go down as I move in front of it, but his ability to hit the target does not.

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan wrote:For

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

For our example of this situation, let's say that my brother sets up a circular target in our backyard.  He stands 50ft away from it with his airsoft gun.  I stand ~25ft (the distances here are irrelevant) to the left of the target.  My body width = the width of the target.  As I move towards the target, his ability to shoot the target remains the same.  Even as I move in front of the target, his ability to shoot the target remains the same.  However, once I move in front of the target completely, his ability to shoot the target disappears, because it is completely covered.  In this scenario, my brother represents human beings, the target represents free will, and I represent God.

There are other issues that reduce his probability as well that you have disregarded. The gun could misfire or break. A gust of wind could alter the trajectory or your hot next door neighbor could go out her back door topless  distracting your brother such that he fires in a completely different direction.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:Missing

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Missing the point.  "Knowing" can be framed as a function of probabilities, i.e., 100% probability that X will happen.  If probability never has an effect on the concept of freewill as it approaches 100%, how could it when it reaches 100%?  I just want an example.. other than what we're talking about.

The problem here is perspective. If there is a god type that is all knowing and all powerful from his perspective not yours you will never do anything that he does not know or has not already known. Your perspective is different since you have not made this particular decision or done this action so you think you have free will to go left or right. So this is a pointless discussion as the god type  in this fictional scenario always knows 100% the outcome. You don't so you think there is a probability though there isn't from the perspective of the one that has rigged the game. If your ignore the god type or he isn't all knowing for whatever reason then there may be a minuscule chance always even for the god for alternate results.

Though I was taught as a Christian god is all powerful and all knowing so that to me eliminates probability for at least one player in this scenario. If one player knows the outcome the game is rigged, end of story.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You're right.  But

Quote:
You're right.  But what you are talking about is chance, not ability.  My brother's chances of hitting the target go down as I move in front of it, but his ability to hit the target does not.


I will have to use BCMD's statement to illuminate a problem:

Quote:
Not so. You're taking action to change his chances. That's different from simply having an awareness of whether or not he will succeed. One is active, the other passive.


Since I didn't limit my request for an analogy to purely passive attributes, such as knowledge of probabilities and freewill, then you gave me an example that was not limited in such a way.

While I disagree with your use of the word ability, I for one believe that ability can go through partial states and therefore you moving in front of the target will take your brother's ability through intermediate phases, I understand that one can define ability as a 0 or 1 issue.  You either have it, or you don't.

Afterall, this is the way I have defined freewill, as above.

Still.. I don't think your example is analogous, and this is my fault for the reasons stated above.

So, I'd restate my request for an example in which X passive attribute of X individual does not affect the passive attribute of Y individual as X passive attribute approaches its upper limit, except when one person's passive attribute reaches its upper limit, Y individual's passive attribute is eliminated.

Quote:
The problem here is perspective. If there is a god type that is all knowing and all powerful from his perspective not yours you will never do anything that he does not know or has not already known.

His "all powerful" attribute isn't necessary to make this conclusion.

Quote:
Your perspective is different since you have not made this particular decision or done this action so you think you have free will to go left or right. So this is a pointless discussion as the god type  in this fictional scenario always knows 100% the outcome.

Agreed.

Quote:
You don't so you think there is a probability though there isn't from the perspective of the one that has rigged the game.

He's only "rigged the game" if he created the game and is both all-powerful and all-knowing.

Quote:
If you[] ignore the god type or he isn't all knowing for whatever reason then there may be a minuscule chance always even for the god for alternate results.

I don't think ignorance of the god type would affect the existence of freewill if the god type does exist who created the game, is all powerful, and is all knowing.

You may think you have freewill because you are ignorance of the god type, but that doesn't mean you have it.

Quote:
If one player knows the outcome the game is rigged, end of story.

Rigged in what sense?  I can know the outcome of coin toss with two head-sides, but if there is no bet, no wager, i.e., no game, what exactly is rigged?

I think the game analogy is inadequate.  Especially when dealing with a purely omniscient god-type, not a omniscient and omnipotent god type.


 


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:I will

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

I will have to use BCMD's statement to illuminate a problem:

Why does everyone do this? I'm not a doctor, I'm an Irishman! (heh) McD!

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Reminds me of...."Hey Bones,

Reminds me of....

"Hey Bones, I'm horny could you find a girl for me?"

"Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor not a pimp!"

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
   RhadTheGizmo

 

 

 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Missing the point.  "Knowing" can be framed as a function of probabilities, i.e., 100% probability that X will happen.  If probability never has an effect on the concept of freewill as it approaches 100%, how could it when it reaches 100%?  I just want an example.. other than what we're talking about.

 

 

 

I'll illustrate with the most random event known to man: horse racing.

 

Scenario 1

Imagine a race with 10,000 horses.  All the horses are running on flat, there's plenty of room to move, the jockeys are balanced fairly and most all things are even.  The man I'm up against - a Mr J Hovah - has told me that I can bet on whoever I want as all horses have a chance of winning the race.  He backs Omniscience and I back Free Will, as both have odds of 10,000 to 1 to come in.

We both have 0 knowledge of the horses and unfortunately for us Dude Random wins.  Oh well, you takes your chances and all that.

 

Scenario 2

Mr J Hovah is now at another race with 10,000 horses.  This time he's backing Omniscience because Mr J Hovah knows that the horse is the race favourite with a 75 % chance that he'll win.  He tells me I can back anyone as they've all got a fair chance.  I back Free Will.  As it turns out Omniscience comes in ahead of the pack.

Mr J Hovah knew with 75 % certainty that Omniscience would win yet he offered me the chance to pick any horse I wanted.  His knowledge didn't affect the outcome of the race or my bet, he just knew the odds better than me.  I still had a chance of grabbing the prize.

 

Scenario 3

The same as scenario 2 but now Mr Hovah's horse Omniscience has a 99.999% chance of beating the rest of the pack.  Again I choose Free Will and lose.  Again his knowledge of the race doesn't affect the outcome.  He knows what's most likely to happen but I still have a chance to win with Free Will.  It might be a small chance but Mr Hovah's knowledge of the statistics doesn't affect that chance.  Any gambler will tell you that, regardless of form and statistics, any horse can win on the day.  I

can still win the race and win the money, regardless of how slight the odds.

 

Scenario 4

Now Mr J Hovah knows with 100% certainty that Omniscience is going to win the race.  He tells me that I can pick any horse I like to win, but he only way I will win is if I pick Omniscience, if I pick the horse he's seen winning.  I don't and I lose.  Every single time.

Has his 100% knowledge impacted the outcome of my decision?  Of course it has.  The only way that anyone can know with 100% certainty that a horse is going to win is if the outcome of the race has been fixed... the outcome has been predetermined from the start.  I have to back Mr J Hovah's horse otherwise I can't win.  My old buddy Free Will may as well not exist at this point.

 

That good enough?

 

M

 

 

 

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Reminds me

MattShizzle wrote:

Reminds me of....

"Hey Bones, I'm horny could you find a girl for me?"

"Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor not a pimp!"

 

 Funny, Matt.

 

Also see:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVhcB9ucmdg

total run time 33 seconds


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
MichaelMcF wrote:Scenario

MichaelMcF wrote:

Scenario 4

Now Mr J Hovah knows with 100% certainty that Omniscience is going to win the race.  He tells me that I can pick any horse I like to win, but he only way I will win is if I pick Omniscience, if I pick the horse he's seen winning.  I don't and I lose.  Every single time.

Has his 100% knowledge impacted the outcome of my decision?  Of course it has.  The only way that anyone can know with 100% certainty that a horse is going to win is if the outcome of the race has been fixed... the outcome has been predetermined from the start.  I have to back Mr J Hovah's horse otherwise I can't win.  My old buddy Free Will may as well not exist at this point.

 

That good enough?

 

M

 

Actually, no... because once again, you're talking about an active agent, not a passive one. Look at it instead like this:

If I can somehow travel into the future to find out who wins tomorrow's Phillies @ Mets game, then travel back to now, my knowledge will not determine their activities. In fact, their activities will STILL determine my knowledge. Why?

Because time is not absolute. Time is an axis of motion, just like length and width, it's just one we are incapable of moving along freely. Keeping this in mind, the ability to see all changes over a specific span of time is no different than being able to see all changes over a specific span of length. Your perception of the length of a yardstick is not what determines the length of the yardstick, it is a passive thing.

 

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:That good

Quote:

That good enough?

 

M

No.

Quote:
Insert BCMD's statement here

The Irish doctor is in.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:Quote:

RhadTheGizmo wrote:


Quote:
Insert BCMD's statement here

The Irish doctor is in.

*sputters, fumes, laughs*

GODDAMMIT!

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Actually, no...

BMcD wrote:

Actually, no... because once again, you're talking about an active agent, not a passive one. Look at it instead like this:

If I can somehow travel into the future to find out who wins tomorrow's Phillies @ Mets game, then travel back to now, my knowledge will not determine their activities. In fact, their activities will STILL determine my knowledge. Why?

Because time is not absolute. Time is an axis of motion, just like length and width, it's just one we are incapable of moving along freely. Keeping this in mind, the ability to see all changes over a specific span of time is no different than being able to see all changes over a specific span of length. Your perception of the length of a yardstick is not what determines the length of the yardstick, it is a passive thing.

 

I get that this is the case for you or me but if we speak of an all powerful God these rules don't apply to him according to Christian God dogma propaganda. Their claim is God is not subject to time as he is outside it. This means he is both in the future and the present and I'm sure some will claim he is in the past too.  The God is present in the past and the future and its all the same to him. In Sci-Fi handling of time travel, the action of simply going to an alternate time causes ripples in the time stream resulting in multiple simultaneous time lines. Here the claim is the God is present in all time and is aware of every minuscule detail from all infinity. That's a very large amount of data storage but apparently its all online instantanous as to the God it is all current. If that is the case from the God's perspective it is all just a playback. In our case we are very far behind in the story and so we are still clueless WTF will happen next. My arguement is from the perspective of the God everything is determined and no choice exists for those in God's reality show, Life, as he has seen every second already. The players on the show have not seen it and think they have a choice but they can't do anything but what the God programmed basically. In the end that's all it can be is his program since he made all, he constructed the rules, and he knows every frigging microsecond of detail. This sures sounds programmed to me.

This leads me to the point where there is so much BS I dimiss the God idea as complete fantasy. I see no reason why a complex frigging game of the magnitude involved would have meaning to an all powerful entity. Why bother just fucking simulate it.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


BrainFromArous
BrainFromArous's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2008-04-24
User is offlineOffline
One Solution to the Free Will Problem

The question: “How can we make meaningful choices if God knows the future?”

The answer: "For God, it’s not the future."

God is not “eternal” but A-ternal.; literally outside and independent of time. (Which, if God created space/time, would make perfect sense.)

This means there is no “past” or “future” by God’s reckoning. God would not have a “memory” as we understand that. God would also not be anticipating anything because God is there when and as it’s happening.

We exist in space/time and our perception is conditioned by that. God doesn’t have those limits. God is simultaneously in the present, past and future because God is time-LESS. God dwells in the eternity of “now.”

God knows what's coming not as a consequence of the manner in which God exists. God can’t help knowing, in other words.

Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I get that this is the case for you or me but if we speak of an all powerful God these rules don't apply to him according to Christian God dogma propaganda. Their claim is God is not subject to time as he is outside it. This means he is both in the future and the present and I'm sure some will claim he is in the past too.  The God is present in the past and the future and its all the same to him. In Sci-Fi handling of time travel, the action of simply going to an alternate time causes ripples in the time stream resulting in multiple simultaneous time lines. Here the claim is the God is present in all time and is aware of every minuscule detail from all infinity. That's a very large amount of data storage but apparently its all online instantanous as to the God it is all current. If that is the case from the God's perspective it is all just a playback. In our case we are very far behind in the story and so we are still clueless WTF will happen next. My arguement is from the perspective of the God everything is determined and no choice exists for those in God's reality show, Life, as he has seen every second already. The players on the show have not seen it and think they have a choice but they can't do anything but what the God programmed basically. In the end that's all it can be is his program since he made all, he constructed the rules, and he knows every frigging microsecond of detail. This sures sounds programmed to me.

This leads me to the point where there is so much BS I dimiss the God idea as complete fantasy. I see no reason why a complex frigging game of the magnitude involved would have meaning to an all powerful entity. Why bother just fucking simulate it.

But that actually has nothing to do with God. That's actually an argument against even the possibility of Free Will, regardless of God.

See, the Universe itself is not subject to Time. Just as the multi-dimensional object that is 'The Universe' contains all of the length in the universe, it contains all of the time. Imagine, if you will, that you can travel infinitely fast, so you can go any distance you like in any direction. Wherever you end up is still in 'The Universe'. Space expands within the observable Universe, but the Universe itself does not exist within Space. Just so, Time exists within the observable universe, and we interact with things through a constant movement along the temporal axis of travel, but the Universe itself does not exist within Time. Time is a property of it. So, on whatever axis of progression the discrete object that is 'the universe' travels along, it's not Time. And, for the entirety of the Universe's progression along that axis, from the point at which it comes into being, through to the point where it ceases to exist, every point in space exists, but more relevant to this issue: every point in time exists. Every action we perceive through time, any external observer would be capable of perceiving together, end to end.

Don't think of it as a 'playback'... think of it as a painting. The external observer, regardless of whether or not it is capable of creating the painting, is observing the painting through two axes of travel that the painting itself (the artistic construct, not the physical object) does not posses: depth (the ability to stand at a position not on the 2-dimensional plane of the painting) and time.

And that doesn't need a 'god'. It doesn't need a 'creator'. It only needs the universe to be finite in size, which we believe it is.

So, the issue truly comes down to: If, from an outside perspective, all actions ever taken, all actions that ever will be taken, etc etc, are all finalized and on display, does that negate Free Will?

And the answer is no, because observation is passive, regardless of how powerful the observer is. Just because God *could* have tailored every single moment to a precise set of specifications he determined beforehand doesn't mean he *must*. A painter can exercise precise control over his brush. Or he can throw cans of paint into the turbine wash of a jet engine. Either way, he'll be able to see where all the paint ends up on the canvas, but he hasn't necessarily exerted any control.

In the same way, without knowing what, if any, external processes initiate the existence of the universe, we cannot speculate over how much control was exerted. Instead, we are forced to rely on our own limited perception of our three spatial and one temporal axes of travel, and interact with the universe we observe, which would appear to give us the ability to make our own decisions. And then we come back to what has already been said: The question of whether or not we actually possess that ability is really meaningless, for reasons already stated.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
BrainFromArous wrote:The

BrainFromArous wrote:

The question: “How can we make meaningful choices if God knows the future?”

The answer: "For God, it’s not the future."

God is not “eternal” but A-ternal.; literally outside and independent of time. (Which, if God created space/time, would make perfect sense.)

This means there is no “past” or “future” by God’s reckoning. God would not have a “memory” as we understand that. God would also not be anticipating anything because God is there when and as it’s happening.

We exist in space/time and our perception is conditioned by that. God doesn’t have those limits. God is simultaneously in the present, past and future because God is time-LESS. God dwells in the eternity of “now.”

God knows what's coming not as a consequence of the manner in which God exists. God can’t help knowing, in other words.

There's the problem, too much BS and needless complexity. To the god it would all be known, so why bother. It's a useless execise.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


BrainFromArous
BrainFromArous's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2008-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Agreed; my point is that

Agreed; my point is that there ARE answers from the theist side to Free Will and other issues...

They're not very good answers, though.

 

Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:So, the issue

BMcD wrote:

So, the issue truly comes down to: If, from an outside perspective, all actions ever taken, all actions that ever will be taken, etc etc, are all finalized and on display, does that negate Free Will?

And the answer is no, because observation is passive, regardless of how powerful the observer is. Just because God *could* have tailored every single moment to a precise set of specifications he determined beforehand doesn't mean he *must*. A painter can exercise precise control over his brush. Or he can throw cans of paint into the turbine wash of a jet engine. Either way, he'll be able to see where all the paint ends up on the canvas, but he hasn't necessarily exerted any control.

In the same way, without knowing what, if any, external processes initiate the existence of the universe, we cannot speculate over how much control was exerted. Instead, we are forced to rely on our own limited perception of our three spatial and one temporal axes of travel, and interact with the universe we observe, which would appear to give us the ability to make our own decisions. And then we come back to what has already been said: The question of whether or not we actually possess that ability is really meaningless, for reasons already stated.

I agree.

My point was the religious view can be shown to be a completely preplanned pointless exercise. I agree there is no way to speculate as to what was before the Universe and that is also a pointless exercise unless traces of the previous state could be determined, which is  likely impossible.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Buddha basically said,

Buddha basically said, religious god concepts are pointless abstractions from our need to focus on better living in our NOW ....


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:And the answer is

BMcD wrote:

And the answer is no, because observation is passive, regardless of how powerful the observer is. Just because God *could* have tailored every single moment to a precise set of specifications he determined beforehand doesn't mean he *must*. A painter can exercise precise control over his brush. Or he can throw cans of paint into the turbine wash of a jet engine. Either way, he'll be able to see where all the paint ends up on the canvas, but he hasn't necessarily exerted any control.

 

That's fine, but the separation of the act of creation and the observation doesn't help any.  It doesn't matter if the painter meticulously lay down his genius or if he snorted a metric fuck-ton of colombian marching powder and threw himself against the canvas naked and covered in paint... to any observer a straight line in the final picture is still a straight line, regardless of how it got there.

It doesn't matter how God started things.  If God as an observer can see all time and knows exactly how things are going to turn out then actions along our axis of time are predetermined.  We are flecks on one line of a picture.  God may not have decided how that axis looks but the axis exists.  It's an observable fact to him.  If the future can be observed and our actions can be witnessed then we have no choice in the matter, just as flecks of paint have no choice in their place in the structure of a painting.  Our choices have already been made and we are going to do what we are going to do.  There is no free will.

 

BMcD wrote:

Instead, we are forced to rely on our own limited perception of our three spatial and one temporal axes of travel, and interact with the universe we observe, which would appear to give us the ability to make our own decisions. And then we come back to what has already been said: The question of whether or not we actually possess that ability is really meaningless, for reasons already stated.

 

You are correct.  In our day to day lives the question of free will doesn't matter.  We are unable to stretch perception to the point of comprehension on this fact.

However - it does matter if you're trying to convince someone that omniscience and free will can exist side by side.

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
I thought Free Will vanishes

I thought Free Will vanishes when you make God the omnipotent creator of everything. Assuming the Garden story is true, what did Adam base his decisions on? The information he had at the time. Who gave him his original data set to work with knowing full well that it would lead him to do "bad things"? God.

 

And it all unfolds from there.

 

-Triften


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I thought Free Will

Quote:

I thought Free Will vanishes when you make God the omnipotent creator of everything. Assuming the Garden story is true, what did Adam base his decisions on? The information he had at the time. Who gave him his original data set to work with knowing full well that it would lead him to do "bad things"? God.

 

And it all unfolds from there.

 

-Triften

This isn't dealing with that.. the topic is narrower.  The question is whether or not mere knowledge disallows the possibility of freewill.  So.. assuming some entity out there has "all-knowledge"--can there still be freewill?

 


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:Quote:I

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:

I thought Free Will vanishes when you make God the omnipotent creator of everything. Assuming the Garden story is true, what did Adam base his decisions on? The information he had at the time. Who gave him his original data set to work with knowing full well that it would lead him to do "bad things"? God.

 

And it all unfolds from there.

 

-Triften

This isn't dealing with that.. the topic is narrower.  The question is whether or not mere knowledge disallows the possibility of freewill.  So.. assuming some entity out there has "all-knowledge"--can there still be freewill?

 

Yes, Rhad you are correct. This isn't dealing with that. And yes, the topic is narrower. The original OP question, however, is essentially irrelevant if we are talking about the christian god. In fact, within a discourse that included virtually all the other religions man has dreamt up, the opening would be a tangential question.

But I'm pretty certain that Master Jedi specifically asked for/seemed interested in Christian responses.

Triftens post, therefore, addressed the topic correctly.

If, as you state, we are talking about some entity out there. Then yes, possible.

Without a narrower definition or consensus as to which potential deity we discuss, the original question only permits answers that are mixed, vague, confusing or worse.

Lastly, just because a topic is narrower doesn't mean that ocassionally a bigger picture isn't necessary to explain ones position.

 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Yes, Rhad you are

Quote:

Yes, Rhad you are correct. This isn't dealing with that. And yes, the topic is narrower. The original OP question, however, is essentially irrelevant if we are talking about the christian god. In fact, within a discourse that included virtually all the other religions man has dreamt up, the opening would be a tangential question.

The only characteristic he gave to the "christian god" was omniscience.  Any further qualities would be a practice in assumptive logic.  Smiling The Christian God could be omnipotent, or not, omnipresent, or not.

Quote:
But I'm pretty certain that Master Jedi specifically asked for/seemed interested in Christian responses.

I thought it was more open ended than that.

Quote:
Triftens post, therefore, addressed the topic correctly.

If, as you state, we are talking about some entity out there. Then yes, possible.

Sweet.  Someone who actually agrees... although BMCD agreed as well.

Quote:
Without a narrower definition or consensus as to which potential deity we discuss, the original question only permits answers that are mixed, vague, confusing or worse.

I don't think this is true at all.  "Omniscience" and whether it disallows for the possibility of freewill is a very narrow subject.. and would have more precise answers than if we said "omniscience and the Christian God."

The latter would require people to make up their own definitions regarding the Christian God.  While they might have a basis for those assertions.. there will no doubt be a difference of opinions between the people discussing.

Here, limiting it to the mere quality of omniscience, all things being equal, we are left with a better conversation.

Quote:
Lastly, just because a topic is narrower doesn't mean that ocassionally a bigger picture isn't necessary to explain ones position.

Very true.

Still.. I think Tod pretty much covered the issue of whether an omnipotent creator with omniscience disallows the possibility of any meaningful sense of "freewill."

Umm.. that is.. of course.. assuming.. he was using "omnipotent" in the sense of "limited to that which is logically possible."

If he wasn't, then he would be wrong, I think. Smiling

 


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
wonko wrote:Yes, Rhad you

wonko wrote:

Yes, Rhad you are correct. This isn't dealing with that. And yes, the topic is narrower. The original OP question, however, is essentially irrelevant if we are talking about the christian god. In fact, within a discourse that included virtually all the other religions man has dreamt up, the opening would be a tangential question.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
The only characteristic he gave to the "christian god" was omniscience.  Any further qualities would be a practice in assumptive logic.  Smiling The Christian God could be omnipotent, or not, omnipresent, or not.

Well, first off let me just say that I only have a couple of minutes before work so I'll respond only to this one statement of yours.

While I can appreciate what you are saying, let me state that I maintain my previous post regarding relevancy of the original question. And  further, I don't even need to point out any of the christian god's "assumed omni-characteristics" to make my case.

Simply look at the christian gods stated plan for mankind, look at many of his actions, look at many of the things even Jesus has said...  all as told, of course, within the fabled pages of the christian bible(s)...choose any bible, i.e. KJV,NAB,etc,etc

One small example:

Whether or not we assume the original post was referring to yahweh, christ, etc....there are far too many religions that purport an eternally hellish and painful afterlife for those who don't follow the teachings and/or for those who refuse to acknowledge or believe in the particular god (or godess). This negates free-will. Wipes it out entirely.

Under this system, a god is not great (great as in a great caretaker/overseer for mankind), except that it certainly can be said that he/she/it is a master at using coercion on humans.

Out of time, sorry, gotta go.


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Re-read the original post as

Re-read the original post as I just did to make sure. There is reference to the christian/christian god....twice.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Wonko wrote:Re-read the

Wonko wrote:

Re-read the original post as I just did to make sure. There is reference to the christian/christian god....twice.

I agree, he also said that God had 100% of knowledge of what happens. The Christian God has all of the Omni- characteristics attached as attributes. When considered from this position it is a frigging movie playback to the God and a useless exercise. Still the people in the movie wouldn't know they were unable to do any action that wasn't pre-planned, they'd think they were. I don't see the point in creating a Universe like that which is one of the reasons I don't buy the Omni- everything god idea.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
I apologize for the mix-up -

I apologize for the mix-up - in my original post I intended to discuss whether the Christian-Judeo God's omniscience takes our free will away.  It seems that most of the discussion has been about an omniscient being, though I would like to focus on the Christian-Judeo God.  Indeed, we are talking about an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent (whatever "all-present" means, I have no idea) God.  Can we have free will if such a God does exist?

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.