A Paradox of Omniscience and Free Will

[Nisus]

If an event has foreknowledge, no choices can be made. One simply is following that which is already known to happen. In other words, no free will. This is a very simply concept to understand.

this thinking is very limited. like trying to make a camel pass through the eye of a needle. Too much information and possibility, with no bandwidth.

Very confined thinking. Contraining out possibility and variables.

It's a false concept. Based on nothing at all, except the suppositions of one human mind. yours.

 

[Cris]

Nisus,

While humans are governed by the passage of time Q's observation must be true. Your lengthy vacuous denials do not demonstrate otherwise.

 

[Nisus]

no he's saying knowledge = compulsion. God's knowledge, who knows what it is exactly could be a foresight, a calculation, whatever.

But that doesn't equate into compulsion, or inability to think for oneself.

That's an awful huge leap of a conclusion over a gap wider than the grand canyon.

 

[Nisus]

The debate should be, is God omniscient, not if we are free-willed. That shouldn't even be a factor of this conversation.

 

[Cris]

Nisus,

The paradox (being examined in this thread) is the apparent conflict between the two. They cannot be seperated.

Think of it less as a compulsion but rather more like a computer program. A program is written before the program is run. The computer has no choice but to follow the instructions. We could say the programmer was omniscient because he knows exactly what the computer will do for every given input.

An omniscient designer is in the same position. It controls and defines all the variables and hence must know every outcome before they occur. In such a scenario we can have no say in the matter - i.e. free will cannot exist.

I can understand your frustration because it clearly feels that we are in control of our choices and that we do have free will, which I suspect is reality. But if true then that does mean there cannot be an omniscient creator.

 

[Cris]

Nisus,

no he's saying knowledge = compulsion.

No he is not saying how it occurs just that it is an inevitable result if the knowledge exists.

 

[Nisus]

Anyways before you make this too complicated, let me enlighten you two.

Life is lived within a matrix for learning. Bounderies set, a cage if you will. The inhabitants placed within the sphere, free to ineract with their surroundings.

Now let's say i'm God. And I want a tournament. In this tournament I am going to take Cris, and Q, and they are going to fight Bruce Lee. Both Cris and Q have consented to fight him.

I place them within the sphere, the cage, where they will fight. I know Bruce Lee is going to lay down the smack; why? My knowledge of his subsequent behaviors. He's trained, he's fought, he's experienced, he has less than 1% body fat.

My foreknowledge of you guys getting owned, doesn't mean you can't run scream, claw and scrape...everything that you do hereafter is your decision; but i'm just goin to watch. My foreknowledge doesn't mean you have no freedom to act for yourselves. I know Bruce Lee is gonna win.

Knowledge doesn't affect mankinds ability to act for themselves within any sphere of existence.

 

[Nisus]

Knowledge of Martial arts however, if you were the possesor, would influence the outcome of the fight.

These 3 things are different.

Knowledge // circumstance // free will

 

[KennyJC]

What good is martial arts if I can just pretend to cry and as he drops his guard in disgust I kick him in the goolies?

Anyway, that's a bad analogy Nisus. You don't have to be God to know Bruce Lee is going to win. We know he has favourable odds for the reasons mentioned but we don't have absolute knowledge that he WILL win before the tournament begins... You made no mention about knowing the future - Just that you know Bruce Lee will win because of the past.

 

[Cris]

Nisus,

And if I shoot him before the fight what does that say for your speculation? What if he were to have a heart attack during the fight and dies?

Knowledge (i.e. certainty) comes after an event has occured, anything before is a matter of speculation and probability. Your speculations do not constitute omniscience.

 

[Nisus]

You made no mention about knowing the future - Just that you know Bruce Lee will win because of the past.

"knowing the past means knowing the cyclical influences that create the present, and by knowing the influences of the present one can see the cyclical influences of the future"

Bit of Mayan Philosophy for you. Actually quite simple. Since the future hasn't taken place yet; God's knowledge must therefore be derived from calculations of the past, or current and present knowledge.

Much like the weather man, and astrology--- but none of that knowledge influences our decisions... hmm. But that's right, only Omniscience can have an effect on decision according to this "paradox".

Funny how in the schematics of your paradox here Cris, Q, Kenny-- you theorize Omniscience = no free will. Your makeshift god, is he stripped of Omnipotence also? This only exists in your minds.

And any assertion that ends in; no free-will, is a foolish assertion. We're free to observe our free-will in action. Why it should be the final equation in any hypothosis is certainly a device of deception--your problem is how can God be Omniscient to begin with. Not the effects.

You've your parapalegic and crippled logic that serves you to not believe in God, and you've "evolution" to back you up as well, maybe you can make it sure with your conviction!!!

 

[KennyJC]

You've your parapalegic and crippled logic that serves you to not believe in God, and you've "evolution" to back you up as well

So someone that doesn't have 'crippled' logic believes the bible is 100% true? By the way there are many religious people who see evolution as being true so I don't see why evolution is being made the frontline in the battlefield here... Unless of course your an American Christian. American... and Christian - Two things which don't combine well to make up a healthy understanding of logic.

Since the future hasn't taken place yet; God's knowledge must therefore be derived from calculations of the past, or current and present knowledge.

For someone who sounds like he knows God so well, I'm thinking there may be a flaw there. What you said sounds to me like God lives each second of the universe in the same way we do. Since time is just another principle of the universe, wouldn't God have complete mastery over time and have the ability to see events 1 billion years into the future by clicking his human male fingers? If God can not see the future 'because it hasn't happened yet', then he is not all powerful and does not have omniscience.

I find it surprising that you are trying to bend things in such a way to make your God less powerful, but at the same time try to make out he does have Omniscience and we do have free will.

 

[Nisus]

So someone that doesn't have 'crippled' logic believes the bible is 100% true? By the way there are many religious people who see evolution as being true so I don't see why evolution is being made the frontline in the battlefield here... Unless of course your an American Christian. American... and Christian - Two things which don't combine well to make up a healthy understanding of logic..

Haha go on thinking whatever you want, you seem to enjoy life better that way anyhow. If evolution is on the frontline/ and on some battlefield/ that's entirely in your mind. :bugeye: What does the Bible have to do with this convo? Ad hominem? You still stuck on another thread? :bugeye:

For someone who sounds like he knows God so well, I'm thinking there may be a flaw there. What you said sounds to me like God lives each second of the universe in the same way we do. Since time is just another principle of the universe, wouldn't God have complete mastery over time and have the ability to see events 1 billion years into the future by clicking his human male fingers? If God can not see the future 'because it hasn't happened yet', then he is not all powerful and does not have omniscience. ..

If your perception of these things makes God seem to you, in some degree inferior, to a previous conception of yours, that's in your mind.
Take note, i'm not affirming any hypothesis where freewill is anulled as the outcome; and sayin it's worth thinking about--- therefore in that light, so also esteem your ideas, as peculiar nonsense.

I find it surprising that you are trying to bend things in such a way to make your God less powerful, but at the same time try to make out he does have Omniscience and we do have free will.

I have freewill, you seem to have surrendered yours =p. As if you had a better notion as to how God is omniscient.

He's only omniscient enough to make you, void of identity, in your theory. Offering no other possibility or variable. You underestimated God before we even began talking...allowing him only a certain portion of the right to omniscience-- so long as it nullifies your free will. How could your conception of God become any more inferior?

You're the one bending principles to satisfy your desired outcome.

 

[KennyJC]

If your perception of these things makes God seem to you, in some degree inferior, to a previous conception of yours, that's in your mind.

That's my perception of your verbal gymnastics and what you say about God. I don't claim to say anything about God since I don't 'know' God. Therefor I can only try to comment about God from what people say who claim to 'know' God.

You underestimated God before we even began talking...allowing him only a certain portion of the right to omniscience-- so long as it nullifies your free will.

I didn't underestimate your God at all, I allowed him the full definition of Omnipotence - Which means since he knows everything, that does not allow us the ability to go beyond what was layed out for us.

That's just basic understanding of definitions of words that has been applied to God. If you wish for a theory from me then so long as we have been created by any sort of intelligence I don't believe in free will. But it would be foolish of me to go around thinking I have no free will since who knows wether we do or not? It seems like we do, but I allow the possability for it to be an illusion.

But since I am not a believer in any sort of intelligent creator, I believe I do have as much free will as is possible under the laws of the universe. So long as nobody else has prior knowledge of what I do before I have done it, then I have free will.

 

[Nisus]

That's my perception of your verbal gymnastics and what you say about God. ..

What is it exactly that I said? That the future hasn't happened yet? You seemed to get hung up on that, though I don't think such a statement could be more plainly understood.

I said "Since the future hasn't taken place yet; God's knowledge must therefore be derived from calculations of the past, or current and present knowledge."

What's wrong with that? How is that a verbal somersault? Backflip ? Does it shock you that God determines events in a very similar likeness, the same as you? Knowledge begats more knowledge. Past (knowledge)+ Present (knowledge)= future (knowledge).

Things we do are in a likeness and image of what God does. After all, being created in His image and likeness. If you wish to understand the heavenly or eternal principles, simply study the temporal, and earthy things. They are in the image of the unseen. And in the likeness of the eternal.

 

[KennyJC]

What is it exactly that I said? That the future hasn't happened yet? You seemed to get hung up on that, though I don't think such a statement could be more plainly understood.

Well since God allegedly created time, you assume that since the time he created for you also applies to him? Well, if you say so I guess...

Past (knowledge)+ Present (knowledge)= future (knowledge).

Explain. I don't think your Bruce Lee analogy made any sense of this strange equation.

Things we do are in a likeness and image of what God does. After all, being created in His image and likeness. If you wish to understand the heavenly or eternal principles, simply study the temporal, and earthy things. They are in the image of the unseen. And in the likeness of the eternal.

Well this is where any respectable philosophy ends and the ignorance of religion begins. I'm sure religious aliens would be very offended by your assumption of a human male God.

 

[Cris]

Nisus,

God's knowledge must therefore be derived from calculations of the past, or current and present knowledge.

And with its powers of omniscience and omnipoence it will be aware of every variable in the entire universe and their entire history. With that information it can determine with perfect accuracy every event that is going to occur. I.e. everything you will ever do is locked into a predetemined sequence determined at the very creation of the universe.

The paradox of course is not a paradox once we remove one of more obstacles, e.g. the universe is infinite and was not created (a god does not exist) and hence the entire question of cause and effect becomes questionable. Or the god in question is not omniscient and therefore isn't really all powerful and of questionable value.

 

[Nisus]

Creations took place for us to interact with. Not to dictate to us what we are or what we do with ourselves. Or what we become.

All tools for learning and progress.

According to your thought; you are what you are, no choice of your own. Just the product of the environment.

 

[Cris]

Nisus,

Creations took place for us to interact with.

That’s a nice idea, seemingly very altruistic if it were true.

Not to dictate to us what we are or what we do with ourselves. Or what we become.

But an impossible scenario if there is an omniscient creator.

All tools for learning and progress.

Works just as well in an evolutionary environment. Doesn’t need a god does it?

According to your thought; you are what you are, no choice of your own.

If there were an omniscient creator then yes that is the necessary result. But then I don’t believe such a thing exists.

Just the product of the environment.

That is what all the available evidence suggests. We appear to have evolved, from what seems likely an infinite universe, with brains that enable us to make free choices, and where time progresses such that it is not possible to know future events until they occur.

Simple right? No paradox and of course no gods or any need for gods.

 

[phoenix2634]

Chris,

In your example of a computer program, if the programmer writes a random outcome for one of the variables, the programmer has just implemented a crude form of free will. You could still say the programmer is omniscient--the programmer still has knowledge of all variables, possible outcomes, strengths, weaknesses, how the program works, and so on.

It seems as though the paradox exists because of an overreaching definition of omniscience is being used. Aren't knowledge and foreknowledge seperate and distinct terms? Isn't an omniscient being one who has a knowledge (not foreknowledge) of all things?