Free will and omniscience

[edge]

In other words you just posted random nonsense.

The kind of hatred you have is what I avoid in people in real life.
We walk on a razor edge, a double edge sword, damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

[AvalonXQ]

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.

Why does the fact that it's already happened mean that I have no choice?

Again, a logical syllogism would be great. I don't think these incompatibility arguments can really be atomized and formalized.

 

[Mycroft]

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?

The "free mechanism" looks exactly the same as if there were no omniscient entity that knows the decision ahead of time.

 

[tsig]

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.

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'.

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'?

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.

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.

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).

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.

IOW god's just a human with a superior skill set.

 

[Dog Breakfast]

When I was a kid I reconciled God's omnicience and our free will by saying that God is looking at the fourth dimension, time, from a higher dimension, and that he sees time the way we see a square, all sides at once, and he sees us trying to decide between X and not-X at the same time as he sees us choosing X or not-X

Then I realized that was the most insane pseudo-thought that ever entered my brain, and reconciled it by saying there is no God there to be omnicient or impact our free will.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

But the decision wasn't "determined", only known. The omniscient entity doesn't force you to pick anything, it only knows enough about you and your circumstances to know what choice you will make.

If I go to a restaurant with my wife. After the meal we are presented with a dessert menu that features a warm bread pudding with butterscotch sauce. I know my wife will pick this dessert even though there are lots of other tempting desserts and even though she will usually forego dessert altogether.

How do I know? Because I know her. I know there used to be this other restaurant that was our favorite, closed for years now, that featured a similar dessert. I know that when she first tried bread pudding she had no idea what it was, but it soon became one of her favorites. I know of the times she tried various recipes of the dessert to see if she could make it like this restaurant we used to enjoy. I know that particular the inclusion of butterscotch topping will make this irresistible to her.

So I make the prediction. I do nothing to influence the decision, I don't even tell her that the bread pudding is on the menu. She's free to pick any item from the menu, or none at all.

Sure enough, she picks the bread pudding. "I knew you would", I say.

How is that not free will?

 

[Nay_Sayer]

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.

No it isn't edge, The universe cares not for our musings.

We are microscopic specks looking for other like microscopic specks and there is a good chance we will never find them. This universe was never, is not and never will be for us alone.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Why does the fact that it's already happened mean that I have no choice? Again, a logical syllogism would be great. I don't think these incompatibility arguments can really be atomized and formalized.

I don't even know how to respond to this; Its like saying why does the fact water turns into ice mean that water isn't jello.

Avalon, It already happened, Your decision is set in stone, I really don't think I nor anyone else (perhaps) can get you to understand this simple notion.

I will try, but my brain hurts.


I am god, I know for a fact because I am god and nothing happens without my will that you are going to do X today. I have looked into the future three days from now and sure enough you did X just like I planed.

Now please tell me how is it you ever had any choices at all if for a fact you were going to do X no matter what.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I am god, I know for a fact because I am god and nothing happens without my will that you are going to do X today.

This statement seems to be implying quite a bit more than omniscience -- it seems to also be implying omnipotence and complete, specific control of events.

If we replace this "god" of yours with a being that knows everything but does not interfere, do you reach the same conclusion?

 

[Mycroft]

Avalon, It already happened, Your decision is set in stone, I really don't think I nor anyone else (perhaps) can get you to understand this simple notion.

I don't think Avalon has any problem understanding your simple notion. It is simple, it is easy to understand. You mistakenly think that the only possible reason he could disagree with you is that he doesn't understand you, and that's your mistake, not his.

You confuse "predicted" with "set in stone", and they're not at all the same thing.

I am god, I know for a fact because I am god and nothing happens without my will that you are going to do X today. I have looked into the future three days from now and sure enough you did X just like I planed.

When you say, "nothing happens without my will" you're introducing a new element to the discussion that wasn't there before. Knowing something will happen and willing it to happen are two different things. An omnipotent being could certainly force you to do whatever it wanted, but that's a different discussion. This discussion is about omniscience, not omnipotence.

Now please tell me how is it you ever had any choices at all if for a fact you were going to do X no matter what.

Think of a weatherman. He predicts the weather, but he doesn't cause it. The weather does what it does regardless of the weatherman's predictions, but because the weatherman understands the laws of physics as they pertain to weather, he's able to accurately predict its outcome.

That's an imperfect analogy because the weather is not a conscious entity capable of decision making, but it works well as an example of something that behaves exactly the same regardless of the existence of something making predictions about it.

Another example would be a sports handicapper. That's someone who's paid to predict the outcome of sporting events (for the purpose of gambling), yet his predictions have nothing to do with the actual behavior of the individual members of the sports teams, all of whom are agents capable of free will.

 

[Good Lt]

Think of a weatherman. He predicts the weather, but he doesn't cause it. The weather does what it does regardless of the weatherman's predictions, but because the weatherman understands the laws of physics as they pertain to weather, he's able to accurately predict its outcome.

Except that weathermen can be wrong. Weather can do unexpected things that aren't in the plan.

Bad analogy.

 

[Aridas]

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!).

Which I am not assuming, because the position that you're proposing is immune to debate, verification, or falsification, even in the face of evidence that would otherwise state that it was a false prophecy.

And I am not 'playing devil's advocate', but merely trying to stop the goalposts from being moved.

From what to what? Pretty sure that my position hasn't changed, at all, when dealing with this matter, personally.

I wish we could just stick with the entity that most people think of when we say 'God',

Perhaps you could define which version of that entity you speak of? There's a lot of them.

and discuss His properties as presented in the Bible.

Most of which are irrelevant to the matter at hand. Also, the "Christian God" for many, if not most, people, is only very loosely based on the Bible, in direct opposition to your previous statement. Assuming, of course, that you're talking about a comprehensive view of how it's described in the Bible, and not just picking and choosing which attributes.

Otherwise god becomes whatever you want Him to be, and any argument can be sidestepped by simply redefining Him.

Which does happen, constantly. That said, my position hasn't changed.

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'.

And I would say that that's a false analogy, at best. Can the sun and the moon choose another path of their own will? Or are you saying that "Free Will" isn't remotely "Free?" Namely, that the chances that someone will choose something other than predicted is, say, less than 0.01%, to be very, very generous?

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.

And in that case, it's not Omniscient, just really, really knowledgeable. Omniscience is just a human label, then, that should be discarded in favor of a description that is more correct. Would "God" be happy to be falsely described? If so, what would that say about its character?

God gave us Free Will, and that means that our decisions are 'by definition' unknowable to God in advance.

Just like when and where eclipses will occur is by definition unknowable, by your argument?

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.

Which raises the questions of "Which predictions?" "How often?" and "How could we tell?" among a number of others.

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'?

You're positing a very knowledgeable, but not Omniscient case. No, the computer opponent would not be justified in considering you to be "Omniscient." It would be understandable, provided the computer opponent was created in such a way that could consider that, but demonstrably false, unless it added the assumption that the creator's actions are not necessarily logical, in which case, it would be an unfalsifiable concept. One which would simply be wrong, in reality.

I could point out ways that this would adversely affect theology, but I'll hold back.

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.

It's too strict because it doesn't include what you desire it to include. Your objection is noted, but is rejected, because it's seeking to replace it with a significantly different concept that, for honesty's sake, should not be conflated with the one that I'm stating. As one can see in this thread, alone, after all, there are far too many conflated concepts that lead people to talk past each other.

The concept that you're proposing does not fit the term of Omniscience very well at all, regardless.

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.

Irrelevant to the matter at hand?

He has a plan for us which will not be thwarted.

Free Will be damned?

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.

Irrelevant.

Certainly you could imagine a mathematically pure infinite 'omniscience', and then point to its incompatibility with Free Will.

"Mathematically pure infinite 'omniscience'"? Can't say that that's what I'm describing, honestly. I've presented a reasonable test to determine what qualifies as Omniscience, for reasonable purposes, either way. That is not necessarily the same thing as a "Mathematically pure infinite 'Omniscience.'"

But that would be considering a theoretical 'god' which is not described in the Bible.

And we can get to the crux of the matter with this statement. This matter is not about the Bible. Nor is it honestly about a version of the Christian God. At best, those two things can be considered an impetus to consider the matter, but the concepts involved are very much independent of the Bible and Biblical God. Given that, neither gets to define or get special privileges in the discussion.

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.

Given that "God's powers as described in the Bible" are completely irrelevant to whether Free Will and Omniscience can co-exist? Again, if you really want to, you can view this as a matter where people are seeking to determine whether human given labels are correct or not, and thus attempting to spread greater clarity on what concepts of "God" are even possible, which should only lead to a greater honesty in discourse on the matter.

Perhaps if people stopped applying that strawman to God, they might begin to see the True message in the Bible.

That sounds suspiciously like a straw man, right there. Also, which "True message in the Bible" are you speaking of? That statement usually seems to be used as a No True Scotsman.

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.

Not what I said, at all. Not even remotely. What I provided was a definite answer, not an answer that does not exist. Also, at no point in that was there an "I don't know."

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, your position is that if the Bible says that God did it and that the Bible says that priests said something to try to convince their enemies, the words of the priests related should be valued as more accurate than the Bible itself directly stating that something is the case?

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.

I find your case to be remarkably weak. Also, irrelevant to the matter at hand.

The principle of a god who has mathematically perfect (and therefore paradoxical) omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence is not Biblical.

Sure. It's also a widely popular belief and has relevance to a few important theological issues. Those alone would be enough to warrant discussion on the matter. Again, this is irrelevant, though.

It is a pagan idea that is at best irrelevant, and at worst turns the Biblical message on it's head (eg. Calvinism).

So, would you be able to back up your pagan point against, say, a position that Christians just really didn't know what they were talking about?

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.

Did I say that Yahweh was an impossible god on these grounds? I can certainly say that a number of conceptions of Yahweh are impossible on these grounds, but that's a somewhat different statement, and generally not all that relevant to the matter at hand. I'm sure that we could go into various ramifications of various positions, deeper discussions about what it actually means to say that the Bible is True and ramifications of such, and so on, but that's not the focus of this thread.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Except that weathermen can be wrong. Weather can do unexpected things that aren't in the plan.

Bad analogy.

So, what is your definition of free will that is immediately negated by any party's knowledge about the resulting choice?

 

[tsig]

I don't think Avalon has any problem understanding your simple notion. It is simple, it is easy to understand. You mistakenly think that the only possible reason he could disagree with you is that he doesn't understand you, and that's your mistake, not his.

You confuse "predicted" with "set in stone", and they're not at all the same thing.


When you say, "nothing happens without my will" you're introducing a new element to the discussion that wasn't there before. Knowing something will happen and willing it to happen are two different things. An omnipotent being could certainly force you to do whatever it wanted, but that's a different discussion. This discussion is about omniscience, not omnipotence.



Think of a weatherman. He predicts the weather, but he doesn't cause it. The weather does what it does regardless of the weatherman's predictions, but because the weatherman understands the laws of physics as they pertain to weather, he's able to accurately predict its outcome.

That's an imperfect analogy because the weather is not a conscious entity capable of decision making, but it works well as an example of something that behaves exactly the same regardless of the existence of something making predictions about it.

Another example would be a sports handicapper. That's someone who's paid to predict the outcome of sporting events (for the purpose of gambling), yet his predictions have nothing to do with the actual behavior of the individual members of the sports teams, all of whom are agents capable of free will.

Predicting isn't omniscience.

Omniscience (play /ɒmˈnɪʃəns/;[1] omniscient point-of-view in writing) is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc. In Latin, omnis means "all" and sciens means "knowing".

 

[Good Lt]

So, what is your definition of free will that is immediately negated by any party's knowledge about the resulting choice?

There is no free will if the choices and outcomes have been set since the beginning of time and can't be altered.

Choice is an illusion in your model.

 

[Mycroft]

Except that weathermen can be wrong. Weather can do unexpected things that aren't in the plan.

Bad analogy.

What do you mean by "the plan"? The weatherman doesn't have a "plan" for the weather, he only studies and predicts it.

Sure, the weatherman could be wrong, but if he is it's because he didn't have all the information or because the science of meteorology isn't fully developed yet. A hypothetical omniscient being wouldn't have that problem. The analogy is only supposed to demonstrate that making a prediction doesn't actually change the outcome; the weather is the same if the weatherman is there to predict it or not.

 

[Mycroft]

Predicting isn't omniscience.

Omniscience (play /ɒmˈnɪʃəns/;[1] omniscient point-of-view in writing) is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc. In Latin, omnis means "all" and sciens means "knowing".

The difference is a matter of degree, like the difference between believing and knowing. It doesn't change the underlying principles.

 

[sadhatter]

Okay, but if you go to that sort of extreme, don't you sort of wash out the moral implications of any action? If you believe in predetermination and ascribe God as the origin of all actions, that makes all of history the equivalent of playing out a movie.

That is a perfect analogy actually. God has written the script, built the sets, done the direction, lighting, sound, art direction, wrangling, everything. He has more control that Kubrick gone super sayjin.

If one both creates everything and knows everything, a movie is exactly what it is.

 

[sadhatter]

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.

And even that is being pretty nice about it.

It isn't just that god knows, it is that god set everything up. Every last piece of sand on earth, that was him, if he wanted things to be different, they would be, he is ******* all powerful, and everywhere, to limit the conversation simply to what he knows, and not open the can of worms as to what he has done, is very gracious of you.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

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

The standard definition of an OB is an entity that knows everything at all times.
This would preclude necessarily accessing knowledge sequentially and that is why my point that
"The OB knows everything just not in a linear temporal order" is true by definition.
As to why you can't grasp that, who knows?