Free will and omniscience

[AvalonXQ]

OK, Avalon under one of these shells is a pea, Go ahead and guess which one.

Let’s assume you pick B and let’s assume it's the right choice. Seems like a fairly simple example of freewill; and it would be if I stopped there and assumed no god was involved.

Now let’s assume I am god (I'm not...maybe) I already know you’re going to pick B which is why I put the pea under that shell in the first place; So I ask, did you really even have a choice at all?

Yes. I had a choice between A, B, and C.

I'm wondering if anybody could create a logical syllogism that demonstrates the contradiction?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

The knowledge aspect has always been irrelevant,

If you can't understand how knowledge is relevant to the topic of knowledge you will appear incompetent.

except in what it says about the nature of reality. Predictive power is only necessarily relevant if one adds that the Omniscience can affect things, as well, namely, the ability to predict what, exactly, will change if the Omniscience interacts with the reality in any particular way.

To paraphrase: Predictive power is relevant if omniscience is actually omnipotence .
If you can't understand that omniscience is an independent concept, then you shouldn't address it.

I do agree that if the "Omniscient Being" doesn't know something before a choice is made, though, that being is not Omniscient.

"Before" does not apply to Omniscience, so if you are going to respond to my post then read my post first.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

If the OB doesn't know something then it isn't an OB.

If you had read past the third line of my post you would have seen why you do not understand the issue.
The OB knows everything just not in a linear temporal order. Now go back and read the entire post to understand why your response was completely non-responsive.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Yes. I had a choice between A, B, and C.

I'm wondering if anybody could create a logical syllogism that demonstrates the contradiction?

No you did not; Remember in this scenario I'm god, I KNOW you're going to pick B no matter what because I can see the future events, Options A and C were never available to you at any point because no matter what you were going to choose B, Why? Because It's already happened.

In other words I me even giving you the option to choose was just me setting you up for a foregone conclusion.

 

[Brian-M]

That your version is



Which, again, is fairly certainly a rather different concept than the one that was almost certainly being argued against.

But my personal concept of free will isn't relevant to the content of that post. That argument in that post applies to all possible concepts of free will that fall into the categories of deterministic and non-deterministic.

Sure, my concept of free will falls into the first category, but so do those of several others in this thread.

 

[Good Lt]

Yes. I had a choice between A, B, and C.

I'm wondering if anybody could create a logical syllogism that demonstrates the contradiction?

Which one did the sky being choose for you to choose so that His Plan would be continued unabated?

Because that's the one you're choosing.

QED

 

[tsig]

If you had read past the third line of my post you would have seen why you do not understand the issue.
The OB knows everything just not in a linear temporal order. Now go back and read the entire post to understand why your response was completely non-responsive.

So once again you have an OB that is not omniscient.

 

[Aridas]

If you can't understand how knowledge is relevant to the topic of knowledge you will appear incompetent.

Sure. I understand it. It's still not particularly relevant. What's relevant is the nature of reality. The knowledge part is only a potential byproduct of such and is not required to actually exist.

To paraphrase: Predictive power is relevant if omniscience is actually omnipotence .

No. Omnipotence is not required. Had I meant Omnipotence, I would have said Omnipotence.

If you can't understand that omniscience is an independent concept, then you shouldn't address it.

Amusing.

"Before" does not apply to Omniscience, so if you are going to respond to my post then read my post first.

You know, I'm going to have to turn that right back at you.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I'm still wondering why free will is valued so much in this topic.
I'm still wondering why free will is important enough to risk your eternal well being over it.

I still wonder how something eternal can be fairly decided in such a momentary flash of existence.

And I still wonder how anything could be worse than an eternal consequence.

 

[Aridas]

But my personal concept of free will isn't relevant to the content of that post. That argument in that post applies to all possible concepts of free will that fall into the categories of deterministic and non-deterministic.

Sure, my concept of free will falls into the first category, but so do those of several others in this thread.

I'm going to be a terrible person and contend that it is sufficiently different a concept of Free Will that discussion of it should require it being stated as what it is. Naturally, for fairness' sake, that would mean that the same is true for other concepts, like the one that I use.

Just to compare our two... Points that are relevant to one are completely irrelevant to the other and vice versa. Also, the issues that they're relevant to address differ, too.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm just expressing my impression.

Let's be civil, okay? I don't see any reason for anyone to participate in this discussion except that discussing the topic is interesting to them. Do you?

But that is what is being discussed.

But there is no reason to limit the dialogue that way. If it's all hypothetical, it could be God, a crystal ball, an evil toy, a computer program, or whatever.

If you don't believe in God then arguing about his attributes is like arguing about the attributes of Superman. You can do it, it may be fun, but if you end up getting mad over it or taking it too seriously, then the fault is with you.

I haven't read that series nor seen the episode, but being able to predict probable events is not the same as knowing with absolute certainty what will happen in the future. In fact, it is the exact opposite. With omniscience, you wouldn't need to predict what will happen, you would already know.

So your definition of omniscience is knowledge so vast you don't even have to think about it, you know the answer before the question is even asked?

How does that work? Are you simultaneously thinking every thought possible at the same time?

I think the definition is unnecessarily limited. Back in the 16th century religious scholars had to assume that God's powers were greater than the absolute maximum limits of infinity they could imagine, but they lived and worked in an environment where assuming anything less would earn you a trip to the bonfire where people could listen to your screams for their personal amusement. Today's environment is a lot less restrictive than that,

The whole point is that they are not decisions if an omniscient being knows that they will be made. I would be merely acting out a prescribed series of events with only the illusion of decision.

But there is no causal relationship between knowing the decision and making the decision.

Let me say that again because it's really the heart of my argument. You say that foreknowledge of a decision limits that decision, but you haven't demonstrated any cause/effect relationship between the foreknowledge and the making of the decision.

This is why I doubt your honesty. I refuse to believe that you are incapable of understanding this.

I understand your argument perfectly, I just don't agree with it. When I first heard it, I did agree with it. At some point years later I thought, "Oh, but wait..." and I changed my mind. What changed my mind? The realization that being able to predict a decision didn't have any effect on the decision making process. the person still has free will because they're still the one making the decisions.

 

[tsig]

Let's be civil, okay? I don't see any reason for anyone to participate in this discussion except that discussing the topic is interesting to them. Do you?



But there is no reason to limit the dialogue that way. If it's all hypothetical, it could be God, a crystal ball, an evil toy, a computer program, or whatever.

If you don't believe in God then arguing about his attributes is like arguing about the attributes of Superman. You can do it, it may be fun, but if you end up getting mad over it or taking it too seriously, then the fault is with you.



So your definition of omniscience is knowledge so vast you don't even have to think about it, you know the answer before the question is even asked?

How does that work? Are you simultaneously thinking every thought possible at the same time?

I think the definition is unnecessarily limited. Back in the 16th century religious scholars had to assume that God's powers were greater than the absolute maximum limits of infinity they could imagine, but they lived and worked in an environment where assuming anything less would earn you a trip to the bonfire where people could listen to your screams for their personal amusement. Today's environment is a lot less restrictive than that,



But there is no causal relationship between knowing the decision and making the decision.

Let me say that again because it's really the heart of my argument. You say that foreknowledge of a decision limits that decision, but you haven't demonstrated any cause/effect relationship between the foreknowledge and the making of the decision.



I understand your argument perfectly, I just don't agree with it. When I first heard it, I did agree with it. At some point years later I thought, "Oh, but wait..." and I changed my mind. What changed my mind? The realization that being able to predict a decision didn't have any effect on the decision making process. the person still has free will because they're still the one making the decisions.

If the prediction is true then there is no decision.

 

[Aridas]

If the prediction is true then there is no decision.

Again, this sounds exactly like you are using a significantly different version of "Free Will" than the person that you're responding to.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Which one did the sky being choose for you to choose so that His Plan would be continued unabated?

Because that's the one you're choosing.

QED

Exactly my point, He apparently isn't grasping that even though three options are present [in my example] he has no control over which one he chooses because I have already determined his choice for him.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

We could go into failed Biblical prophecies, but you've stated you're playing devil's advocate.

There are no failed prophecies in the Bible. If any prophesy did not come to pass it is either because God changed His mind, or you have misinterpreted the prophecy (of course this assumes that the Bible is True - all bets are off if it isn't!).

And I am not 'playing devil's advocate', but merely trying to stop the goalposts from being moved. I wish we could just stick with the entity that most people think of when we say 'God', and discuss His properties as presented in the Bible. Otherwise god becomes whatever you want Him to be, and any argument can be sidestepped by simply redefining Him.

under the scenario that you've presented, the predictions are, at best, highly likely, not certain.

I predict that there will be an eclipse of the Sun on the 13th of November 2012. That's not certain, but it is highly likely. I think it would be fair to say that Biblical predictions having a similar level of certainty can legitimately be called 'prophecy'.

An infinite number of them, no less?

Infinity doesn't always mean literally 'without end' - sometimes it is used rhetorically. Take your own statement above. There cannot be an infinitely large number of examples in the Bible, so you must mean something else by 'infinite' (perhaps 'so many that we cannot count them', or even just 'a really big number'?). Similarly, when a biblical passage says that God's wisdom is 'infinite', that doesn't mean that He knows an infinite number of things, including things which are impossible to know. For example, if God put true randomness into Quantum physics, then even He cannot tell whether Schrödinger's cat is alive or dead. That information simply does not exist.

God gave us Free Will, and that means that our decisions are 'by definition' unknowable to God in advance. Our decisions have a certain 'random' aspect to them, preventing God from perfectly predicting the future in minute detail. However, what He can do is intervene to make sure that certain predictions come to pass.

As an analogy, imagine that you write a computer game. You know exactly how each algorithm works, so you can perfectly predict the outcome of any game, and you can easily beat the computerized opponent. But that's too boring, so you add a random number generator which affects the opponent's decisions. You still have enough knowledge and power to win every time (by hacking if necessary) but you must modify your gameplay according to what decisions your opponent makes. If the computer opponent was 'aware' of your existence, do you think it would be justified in considering you to be 'omniscient'?

I will accept lesser forms of Omniscience, as well, provided they can pass that test under at least some circumstances, and even potentially give a little leeway under situations that may not allow for everything to be known, merely everything that happens.

Even with that tiny bit of 'leeway' your definition is still far too strict. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God has infinite knowledge of the future, only that He knows of certain events which will occur. This is partly due to the vast knowledge He has, and partly because He can cause those events to happen. When the Bible says God knows something will happen, it means it! And that is all it means.

The Bible doesn't say that God is a time-hopping multidimensional all-pervading force which has its eye on every wave and particle in the universe, but simply that we cannot presume to go against God and get away with it. He has a plan for us which will not be thwarted. He hopes that we will do the right thing. But the Bible also makes it clear that we must make the decision to follow or reject Him. God may have the power to know or do anything else, but He cannot make our minds up for us.

Certainly you could imagine a mathematically pure infinite 'omniscience', and then point to its incompatibility with Free Will. But that would be considering a theoretical 'god' which is not described in the Bible. If not being able to know things which are unknowable by definition prevents a deity from being omniscient then 'so be it', but that does not in any way reduce God's powers as described in the Bible. Perhaps if people stopped applying that strawman to God, they might begin to see the True message in the Bible.

an omniscient being would know that the creature that you're speaking of doesn't exist, and therefore, the answer is that the mating habits of the Shivan wumpus do not exist. That such a thing does not exist is a valid answer to the question.

Exactly. God has defined Free Will as being outside His sphere of influence. Therefore He can truly answer "I don't know" without compromising His omniscience, because a definite answer does not exist.

such a course of action appears in the Bible in examples like God hardening Pharaoh's heart.

This is just another example of creating meaning where none was intended. Nowhere does the Bible say how God 'hardened Pharaoh's Heart' or even whether this was an overt action on God's part. There is no evidence that God reached into Pharaoh's mind and subverted his Free Will. In fact the Bible suggests that he did it to himself.

1 Samuel 6:6

Why do you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh did? When Israel’s god dealt harshly with them, did they not send the Israelites out so they could go on their way?​

So what we have here is the Bible stating one thing, and people taking something else entirely out of it. God's omniscience is treated the same way by people who aim to subvert the Lord's message to suit thier own twisted agendas. The principle of a god who has mathematically perfect (and therefore paradoxical) omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence is not Biblical. It is a pagan idea that is at best irrelevant, and at worst turns the Biblical message on it's head (eg. Calvinism).

No. I have no interest in dealing with No True Scotsman, regardless. I've already touched on what I consider "True Omniscience," much as I usually call it "Intrinsic Omniscience." "True Prophecy" would simply be prophecies that were certain to come true, not merely highly likely.

Fair enough. However I don't think that the impossibility of marrying 'Intrinsic Omniscience' and 'True Prophecy' to Free Will makes Yahweh into an impossible God. If the Bible is True, then He is as described therein. The problem is our insistence on having a mathematically pure model of God.

 

[cyborg]

Yes. I had a choice between A, B, and C.

By what mechanism does choice operate such that A, B or C is actually chosen?

At the moment there is only the assertion that A, B or C could be freely chosen. What does the "free" mechanism look like?

 

[Belz...]

But you still make the decision to pick X. How does someone/something else knowing about it change that?

That's the problem. Although from the point of view of the person, he or she has made a decision, the reality is that he or she didn't because it was determined in advance. There was no Y or Z choice available.

 

[Belz...]

And yet day to day your life requires countless decisions. What time to wake up, what to wear, what to have for breakfast...? Who makes these decisions if not you?

You are failing to see the point. In a deterministic universe, including one where God exists and knows everything in advance, there is no choice.

Not that we notice, of course. But it's still the case.

 

[Belz...]

If you are incapable - which you are - of choosing something other than what the invisible omniscient being has determined you are to choose, then the choice itself is an illusion.

Ah ! More succintly put than I could muster.

 

[edge]

Why do you have such an aversion to exploring the notion that nothing you do as a speck in this massive universe matters on a cosmic scale?

There doesn't "have to be" a plan. And based on what we have observed about the physical universe in which we exist, it appears highly unlikely that there is one.

It appears that way.
The Kingdom is within us, what is out there is for us.
What is within us is a different story. You have to look there to find what it is we are all looking for.