A Paradox of Omniscience and Free Will

[KennyJC]

God created the laws of time, and is outside it, yes. God certainly knows and uses it (like when He created the universe with and within a certain timeframe, "six days"). Time is the little antfarm we live in, the dimension that allows us to distinguish one event from another, to turn left or right in time (pun intended). What we consider "foresee", God only "sees". God sees the whole creation from beginning to end (He is called the "alpha and omega", and the "I am" - eternal present tense - after all). God will put an end to time, which is why He warns us to be ready for "the last day". Our chance and ability to act in time is what we call "grace" (2 Pet. 3:9).

So if all time can be seen by God, then everything we have done has already happened in a very linear fashion. And linear as time appears to have one direction.

I heard a cosmological theory that there are an unlimited amount of universes, and together they make all possible outcomes a realtiy. So apparently I exist in every place at every possible time. That of course is likely to be BS, but would fit the argument for God having omniscience. With that said, even if that is a reality, would that still mean we have free will? Since everything we do has already been covered.

 

[KennyJC]

Because it is not that which is manifested in words that is truly being discussed, here.
Some people have beforehand decided what they will accept and what not. When one pursues an agenda different from what is verbally manifest, a constant clash is bound to happen.

Some atheists could simply say, "I don't believe in God, and no matter what, I will not believe in God" -- and then stick to this. This would make communication very easy, as there'd be no debate about God, no challenges that one be proven wrong or to prove someone else wrong.
Yet, something drives these men and women to argue, endlessly, while fully knowing they won't back away. It's a fist fight, a power struggle. I think they had done better using sticks and stones, rather than those endless, indirect arguments.

That sounds like a strange thing to say coming from someone that has attatched themself to one religion and one (manmade) God. This is why I laugh when a theist calls me narrow minded.

I never argue against 'God'. I argue, as you say, endlessly... against rules, laws, stories portrayed as realities and Gods created by man in the name of religion.

I don't know for a fact if Christianity or Islam etc is wrong, but I can say with near 100% certainty that it as wrong. Do you realize how many man-made religions there are/have been/will be/could be? To belong to one of them is guarunteed to lead to failure.

That is why being agnostic is the wisest option availible - Whilst religion is the most infantile option availible.

 

[Nisus]

Dream on – you have not moved the issue of the paradox along one iota.

The issue of this paradox is all in your mind. Your the one that created it. You sustain it. You are like a black hole trying to suck us into your state of mind.

Like I said you're wrong, this is your philosophy.

How you perceive omniscience, and free will is your opinion. Finite minds vs Infinite concepts. Not that they can't be comprehended, but feel free to leave room for possibility.

 

[Cris]

water,

They don't think what they are asserting are fantasies.

And there lies the basis for the debate that has been raging for thousands of years.

And of course they still can't show their assertions are not fantasies.

 

[Cris]

Water,

How could a non-omniscient being demonstrate omniscience?
It's nonsensical to demand a non-omniscient being to demonstrate omniscience.

But then how do those who insist it exists know it exists? They don’t, it is just a fantasy when evidence is absent.

Think: Can there even exist a proof of freedom?

Like how do we know we are not in a matrix?

But consider this: God created free beings, and only from then on, they come under the rules of cause and effect.

But the details of how they were created and their abilities will determine what happens next. If he created them with a tendency towards evil then that might be one path. If he created them perfect then they would stay that way. Everything that follows from the point of creation would be determined by those initially created variables. And since he designed those initial conditions then he will have effectively controlled every event that will follow. I.e. everything will be predetermined.

 

[Cris]

Nisus,

The issue of this paradox is all in your mind. Your the one that created it. You sustain it. You are like a black hole trying to suck us into your state of mind.

No not really. It is a very old classical argument that has been debated for centuries. It is simple logic and the theists have to date not been able to offer a solution.

 

[Nisus]

No not really. It is a very old classical argument that has been debated for centuries. It is simple logic and the theists have to date not been able to offer a solution.

You wanna explain that simple logic again? What you call 'logic' in this case, I call, jumping to conclusions without any foundation or base whatsoever.

So it's an idea you're inclined to believe. Another facet of your complex religion, i've observed.

I suppose you've never told yourself, well how could omniscience/free will work in perfect harmony? Perhaps you would be able to see, after you cast off the shadow of doubt. Have you ever thought of the many possibilities?

 

[Cris]

Nisus,

You wanna explain that simple logic again?

No, it’s been repeated here many times already.

What you call 'logic' in this case, I call, jumping to conclusions without any foundation or base whatsoever.

You mean like the theist claim that a god exists?

So it's an idea you're inclined to believe.

Unless you can show a logically consistent alternative, which you haven’t done yet.

Another facet of your complex religion, i've observed.

Answering your own assertion is disingenuous of you.

I suppose you've never told yourself, well how could omniscience/free will work in perfect harmony?

Sure I have. I always look at the alternatives when formulating an argument. I need to understand what others might claim as opposition.

Perhaps you would be able to see, after you cast off the shadow of doubt. Have you ever thought of the many possibilities?

Sure, none of them resolve the issue.

 

[Nisus]

You wanna explain that simple logic again?

No, it’s been repeated here many times already.

No, because I might turn it on you, and flip it into chop chop, quote and bash you? Like thus?

What you call 'logic' in this case, I call, jumping to conclusions without any foundation or base whatsoever.

You mean like the theist claim that a god exists?

No, more like how you form the absolutism in that cranium and matter between your ears; that there is no way an omniscient being could exist without robbing everyone of free will.

So it's an idea you're inclined to believe.

Unless you can show a logically consistent alternative, which you haven’t done yet.

Oh you mean, one you just havn't agreed with? That is harmonious with your standard for logic? Like how you can conclude that another Being's knowledge affects ---creatures designed to think and choose for themselves?

God Omnipotent and Omniscient-- isn't able to create a world for his creatures to inhabit where they are FREE TO DO WHAT THEY WILL?

Somewhere along this whole conversation you've managed to not grasp that. Like the moment someone brings it up, it's still unworthy of shaking any of that "logic", that you say solidifies your idea.

You false idealogy of logic, justifies only Cris. That's convenient!!

Another facet of your complex religion, i've observed.

Answering your own assertion is disingenuous of you.

What because I think your beliefs are just as deep as any other religious persons? It's all in the human mind right? How we judge and perceive. What does the universe care? It's not going to defend you. Your ideas will wither away into naught just like any other.

I suppose you've never told yourself, well how could omniscience/free will work in perfect harmony?

Sure I have. I always look at the alternatives when formulating an argument. I need to understand what others might claim as opposition.

So then it must be your conviction that makes you so resilient. Since it's not any proven logic.

Perhaps you would be able to see, after you cast off the shadow of doubt. Have you ever thought of the many possibilities?

Sure, none of them resolve the issue.

The issue you swallow like a pill and incorporate into yourself. Something that has no effect on anything except your own state of mind.

 

[Cris]

Nisus,

God Omnipotent and Omniscient-- isn't able to create a world for his creatures to inhabit where they are FREE TO DO WHAT THEY WILL?

Yup that’s the issue.

Your problem comes from heaping impossible super powers onto your imaginary deity. If such a creature were to exist then those properties would result in unavoidable repercussions. The simplest issue is that the existence of knowledge of future events means that those future events must occur.

 

[Adstar]

Because it is not that which is manifested in words that is truly being discussed, here.
Some people have beforehand decided what they will accept and what not. When one pursues an agenda different from what is verbally manifest, a constant clash is bound to happen.

Some atheists could simply say, "I don't believe in God, and no matter what, I will not believe in God" -- and then stick to this. This would make communication very easy, as there'd be no debate about God, no challenges that one be proven wrong or to prove someone else wrong.
Yet, something drives these men and women to argue, endlessly, while fully knowing they won't back away. It's a fist fight, a power struggle. I think they had done better using sticks and stones, rather than those endless, indirect arguments.

The struggle is not often for the other who is arguing against ones thoughts. the stuggle is usually for the undecided on looker who is observing the exchange. Your right, most people who post have made up their minds and they have absolutly no interest in the others thoughts. So it can only be looked upon as a vain waste of time if your desire is to only convince the other debator of the validity of the thoughts you hold.

The topic being discussed here can only be understood if God reveals to one understanding on the matter. So debating with people who do not even believe in God would seem a complete waste of time, But the thing is not all readers who come to this forum have set themselves in disbelief.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Cris]

adstar,

The topic being discussed here can only be understood if God reveals to one understanding on the matter.

Unless God does not exist, which you can't disprove.

 

[KennyJC]

The struggle is not often for the other who is arguing against ones thoughts. the stuggle is usually for the undecided on looker who is observing the exchange. Your right, most people who post have made up their minds and they have absolutly no interest in the others thoughts. So it can only be looked upon as a vain waste of time if your desire is to only convince the other debator of the validity of the thoughts you hold.

The topic being discussed here can only be understood if God reveals to one understanding on the matter. So debating with people who do not even believe in God would seem a complete waste of time, But the thing is not all readers who come to this forum have set themselves in disbelief.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Again, I reiterate that I am arguing against religion and not against God. There is a difference there which I think many theists don't see.

 

[Jenyar]

So if all time can be seen by God, then everything we have done has already happened in a very linear fashion. And linear as time appears to have one direction.

Like Cris's "cause and effect"? But cause and effect does not quite run on this linear time-line like we imagined it, as chaos theory shows. To say that God is limited to cause and effect is like saying God is trapped in time with us, limited to the same dimensions as us. Causality is only one perspective on how we experience time. Cris seems to say it's the only perspective there is, and therefore the only perspective God can have.

I heard a cosmological theory that there are an unlimited amount of universes, and together they make all possible outcomes a realtiy. So apparently I exist in every place at every possible time. That of course is likely to be BS, but would fit the argument for God having omniscience. With that said, even if that is a reality, would that still mean we have free will? Since everything we do has already been covered.

The many-universes theory is a crude attempt at envisioning more perspectives than causality allows. It has actually already been expressed mathematically, because without such extra dimensions, gravity and quantum physics could not exist together, and obviously they do. But this leaves us with more room to maneuver, not less. It seems God has created the universe with different possibilities inherent to it, and created us the same way.

 

[Adstar]

Again, I reiterate that I am arguing against religion and not against God. There is a difference there which I think many theists don't see.

So you believe in God KennyJC ?


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Jenyar]

The simplest issue is that the existence of knowledge of future events means that those future events must occur...

... as long as all the conditions that determine that they will occur are present. If these condiions change, the foreseen event will change. We avert disasters that way all the time.

 

[KennyJC]

So you believe in God KennyJC ?


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I believe it is a possability an intelligent creator created the universe, but I don't find it likely. Calling him 'intelligent' is the result of not being able to understand anything outside the universe - This assumes intelligence is possible on a grander scale outside the universe. I find this hard to get around seeing as these are concepts within our universe. Even if there is such a thing, we can't know anything more about it other than what we can see... what he created. Which is why I consider myself agnostic.

I just reject manmade Gods created by religions, that is all.

 

[water]

That sounds like a strange thing to say coming from someone that has attatched themself to one religion and one (manmade) God. This is why I laugh when a theist calls me narrow minded.

Uh. I have "attached myself to one religion and one (manmade) God"? I didn't know that ...


* * *

Cris,

Like how do we know we are not in a matrix?

Has it occured to you that some questions are pointless?

 

[water]

I just reject manmade Gods created by religions, that is all.

How do you know which gods are manmade? What is your criteria for telling manmade gods from gods that are not manmade?

 

[KennyJC]

What is your criteria for telling manmade gods from gods that are not manmade?

When man says God is this and God did that God loves this and God looks down on that... Basically: Any organised religion or whenever someone claims to 'know' God.