Free Will vs Omniscience koan solved!!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Raithere:

To clarify: My point is that knowledge of an event does not determine the event.

That a "God" may have knowledge of a future event does not predetermine the event. The truth of the knowlege cannot be known until the event occurs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We seem to be going round in circles.....

We aren't just talking about you having knowledge of what you are going to have for dinner etc.

Consider this:

God knows that I am going to stub my toe tomorrow morning at 8.47 AM.

It therefore is going to happen..lo and behold at 8.47 I stub my toe. Now who or what determined that event?

Was it me? Did I think to myself..ok, I've got to stub my toe now......

Or was it determined by the god who knew it was going to happen?

With omniscience, the event is determined and free will is only an illusion.

Why is this so difficult for some people to grasp????
 
Jan,

Please don't stop posting! Your posts are very valuable for me. :)

Love,
Nelson
 
Originally posted by Master of Illusion
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Raithere:

To clarify: My point is that knowledge of an event does not determine the event.

That a "God" may have knowledge of a future event does not predetermine the event. The truth of the knowlege cannot be known until the event occurs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We seem to be going round in circles.....

We aren't just talking about you having knowledge of what you are going to have for dinner etc.

Consider this:

God knows that I am going to stub my toe tomorrow morning at 8.47 AM.

It therefore is going to happen..lo and behold at 8.47 I stub my toe. Now who or what determined that event?

Was it me? Did I think to myself..ok, I've got to stub my toe now......

Or was it determined by the god who knew it was going to happen?

With omniscience, the event is determined and free will is only an illusion.

Why is this so difficult for some people to grasp???? "
Click to expand...

This is certainly circular thinking.

Stubbing your toe has nothing whatsoever to do with "freewill". This is one of those unavoidable things that we bitch about for days. And have you ever noticed that, if there is someone there with you, they invariably laugh at your reaction? I have done it to others and had it happen to me. It is kinda funny. But back to the subject.......you have freewill in those things you can control. you could perhaps, in the future, remember to move the obstacle which caused you such discomfort......that would be a freewill act on your part. But if you forget......this is also a freewill act.

Although God knew about it, he did not prevent it. So in that sense, stubbing your toe could be seen as a certain freedom. Although I think I prefer intervention.

Then again, it is rather entertaining isn't it?
 
Originally posted by Master of Illusion
quote:
With omniscience, the event is determined and free will is only an illusion.
Why is this so difficult for some people to grasp????
Click to expand...


First of all, I don't have trouble grasping the paradox. In fact, during my initial consideration of the dilemma I came up with the same conclusion (i.e. omniscience and free will are exclusive).

Other than that toe stubbing is not usually a deliberate act, how is your example different than my own?

om·nis·cient adj. 1. Having total knowledge; knowing everything.
de·ter·mine v. 4. To be the cause of; regulate.

So what you are saying is that knowledge of an event causes the event. Do you not have knowledge of the things you did yesterday? Does that mean that you did not have free will yesterday?

Let me try to describe this in a different manner:

One cannot have knowledge of something that hasn't happened. Prior to the event actually occurring one can only predict the probability of an event occurring. The prediction (I hope you will agree), no matter its accuracy, has no bearing on the outcome of the event.

An omniscient being has actual knowledge of an event. Therefore, the event must have already occurred from that being's frame of reference (i.e. the event is in the being's past). For a being to be omniscient it would then have to exist:
1. Outside of time, 2. Throughout all time simultaneously, or 3. at the end of time and able to see into the past.

In each of these cases the event has already occurred from the temporal perspective of that being. This, other than in scope, is the same as our knowledge of the past from our own temporal perspective. It's knowledge of an event no more changes the causation or outcome of that even than does ours.

You are running into an apparent paradox because you are trying to combine two temporal frames of reference.

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by Raithere



"First of all, I don't have trouble grasping the paradox. In fact, during my initial consideration of the dilemma I came up with the same conclusion (i.e. omniscience and free will are exclusive).

Other than that toe stubbing is not usually a deliberate act, how is your example different than my own?"

It doesn't, I was speaking from my own frame of reference in regards to the subject at hand.

"om·nis·cient adj. 1. Having total knowledge; knowing everything.
de·ter·mine v. 4. To be the cause of; regulate.

So what you are saying is that knowledge of an event causes the event."

No, I am saying that there are two perspectives on the event, ours and Gods. As I believe you go on to agree.

"Do you not have knowledge of the things you did yesterday? Does that mean that you did not have free will yesterday?"

Not at all, it is just that free will is a perspective which we have as mortal humans confined within "space time".

"Let me try to describe this in a different manner:

One cannot have knowledge of something that hasn't happened. Prior to the event actually occurring one can only predict the probability of an event occurring. The prediction (I hope you will agree), no matter its accuracy, has no bearing on the outcome of the event."

Well, hehe, (not to argue your point, I do agree), unless the prediction is made known to the person who is the object of that prediction. Could we say that this knowledge could change the end result and suddenly make this prediction accurate? And if this does occur, would that "changed result" not have been known to an omniscient being?

"An omniscient being has actual knowledge of an event. Therefore, the event must have already occurred from that being's frame of reference (i.e. the event is in the being's past). For a being to be omniscient it would then have to exist:
1. Outside of time, 2. Throughout all time simultaneously, or 3. at the end of time and able to see into the past.

Absolutly, this is the case in biblical predestination. All three examples would be true.

"In each of these cases the event has already occurred from the temporal perspective of that being. This, other than in scope, is the same as our knowledge of the past from our own temporal perspective. It's knowledge of an event no more changes the causation or outcome of that even than does ours."

Yes I see your point. But this is not really the same as a being who looks at the entire scope of time from a past perspective. It is one thing to see what has already occurred within time. It is another to have that knowledge prior to its occurrance. Or in fact to have full knowledge of all events.

"You are running into an apparent paradox because you are trying to combine two temporal frames of reference."

You may be right, however the two frames of reference do intersect. Otherwise we could not be having this discussion. It is a concept that just happens to be a reality. Or at least theortically likely.

I think were actually agreeing in a totally unique way. HA!
Click to expand...
 
What God can't control

Even though the point is a couple of days old ...
Can God then create what he cannot thereafter control?
Click to expand...
Well, despite all else, Christians often insist on believing in the Devil, as well. While it's not a uniform conclusion among Christians, the general trend seems to be that the Devil is responsible for what we find evil, and God has nothing to do with it. It would seem, then, that God is unable to control the Devil.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Well, despite all else, Christians often insist on believing in the Devil, as well. While it's not a uniform conclusion among Christians, the general trend seems to be that the Devil is responsible for what we find evil, and God has nothing to do with it. It would seem, then, that God is unable to control the Devil.
Click to expand...

But according to the Bible, God can control Satan to a certain extent. In the story of Job, he allows Satan to kill off Jobs family and friends and infect him with skin diseases to prove a point. God quite clearly gave Satan limits on what he was allowed and not allowed to do. If thats true, then any evil that Satan carries out must have been authorised by God first, and if God allows Satan to perform certain evils in the world then they must serve some purpose in Gods plan, which means that Satan is some kind of agent working for God, not against him. Perhaps thats a bit off topic but its been bugging me for the past week or so.
 
Dracula's Guest

Yeah, it's a conundrum that no phase of Christianity has resolved until the modern one. It seems that, at least among American Christians, there is no need to understand faith. The resolution of this conundrum came when American Christians at least decided to skip the whole debate and just blame the Devil anyway.

Remember that motto: If at first you can't figure it out, just assume and go from there. It seems to have worked for the Christians. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Originally posted by Richie_LaMontre

Yes I see your point. But this is not really the same as a being who looks at the entire scope of time from a past perspective. It is one thing to see what has already occurred within time. It is another to have that knowledge prior to its occurrance. Or in fact to have full knowledge of all events.
Click to expand...

But it is. Time is relative. Therefore, it is simply a matter of perspective. Our observation of the past is only different in perspective than a future being's observation of our future (it's past). It is a difference of perspective (frame of refence) not of function.

That two things are related (e.g. event and knowledge of that event) does not imply causation. Causation in one direction does not imply causation in the other direction. In this case, causation only goes one way: choice --> event --> knowledge not the other way around: choice <-- event <-- knowledge. At least in our timeline/reality.


Originally posted by Richie_LaMontre

You may be right, however the two frames of reference do intersect. Otherwise we could not be having this discussion. It is a concept that just happens to be a reality. Or at least theortically likely.

I think were actually agreeing in a totally unique way. HA!
Click to expand...

Yes, there is an intersection. Omniscience would necessarily encapsulate all of time. I don't know if I would say that omniscience is theoretically likely but we can probably count on some of us being here for the forseeable future.

I concur. Finding common ground and understanding is one of the joys of discussion and debate. Of course, the other is thoroughly crushing your opponent. ;)

~Raithere
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top