I Have a Favor to Ask...

[2dimes]

Just because someone knows what you're going to do, doesn't automatically affect your choice to do it.

Let's say we're playing chess and I notice you allways choose to make a particular move in a certain situation. The next time we play you still need to make that choice when the time comes. Freewill is just your ability to choose not what your choice might be.

Or do you feel you don't have a choice just because you never change the move.

[jonesthecurl]

Free will is a golden thread running through the frozen matrix of fixed events.

[Maugena]

Free will is a golden thread running through the frozen matrix of fixed events.

Ho-kay...

[natty dread]

Just because someone knows what you're going to do, doesn't automatically affect your choice to do it.

ACTUALLY YES IT DOES

because if someone can know what you are going to do, then you have no choice but to do exactly that, otheriwise that someone's knowledge of you doing so would be FALSE, SO THERE

















BOOYAH

[john9blue]

Just because someone knows what you're going to do, doesn't automatically affect your choice to do it.

ACTUALLY YES IT DOES

because if someone can know what you are going to do, then you have no choice but to do exactly that, otheriwise that someone's knowledge of you doing so would be FALSE, SO THERE

BOOYAH

this happened to me in another forum, i made t-rex my avatar and suddenly i started talking like him

[Lionz]

How about we don't assume that He's all powerful or all knowing? What if He created conscious beings with the ability to make decisions and yet He's able to step in and out of various points in time?

Are there points in the Back to the Future movies in which Marty is the only one with the ability to make choices? What if there are trillions of individuals making decisions constantly and yet there is one or more individual who can a) step in and outside of time and attempt to mold outcomes and b) travel to the past and give prophetic messages to individuals about what will occur? Could destiny and free will not be able to exist simultaneously in that case?

Natty, you knowing what someone would do would not mean that they would have no free will maybe. What if you were to travel back to 9/11 in spirit and witness events of the day without being able to interact with surroundings? You would know one or more thing would happen maybe, but would there not be individuals making choices throughout the day either way? And even if you were able to interact with surroundings, how much of a difference would that make in regards to whether or not there were individuals making choices?

[natty dread]

If we assume a god that is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, then how is it different from the rest of us?

[Lionz]

I'm not saying we should or should not assume He is, but you might ask a thought provoking question. Who would turn down an opportunity to chill out with Yahushua over a bottle of wine?

[natty dread]

Let's make this as simple as I can.

You either have or do not have free will.

The future either is or is not pre-determined.

The two cannot co-exist: if the future is pre-determined, then free will cannot exist. Obviously.

In order for someone (anyone) within the universe to be omniscient, there must be a pre-determined future - otherwise, it is impossible to know what will happen in the future, since everyone's choices affect it.

Therefore we can conclude, that if anyone or anything within an universe is omniscient, then free will does not exist within that universe.

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's make this as simple as I can.

You either have or do not have free will.

The future either is or is not pre-determined.

The two cannot co-exist: if the future is pre-determined, then free will cannot exist. Obviously.

In order for someone (anyone) within the universe to be omniscient, there must be a pre-determined future - otherwise, it is impossible to know what will happen in the future, since everyone's choices affect it.

Therefore we can conclude, that if anyone or anything within an universe is omniscient, then free will does not exist within that universe.

Why are you so certain that this has to a follow an "either this or that" logic?

You could go with the "It's either A or B, A and B, or none" logic (way back in the day like India did).

Or you could go beyond the intellect by taking a different path all together.

[Woodruff]

Which basically says, that any being being omniscient implies determinism which clearly implies loss of free will.
You cannot be omniscient without knowing how everything is going to happen. And if it is possible to know this, then everything must be pre-determined, because otherwise things could happen differently and that knowledge would be wrong. And if everything is pre-determined, then obviously there is no free will. So an omnipotent or omniscient god can not exist together with free will.

No. This is not true, though it is a matter of perspective. I've been through this in several threads over the years here. You must consider that God is "outside of the timeline" because God exists in ALL times. Therefore, individuals would still have free will within their linear timeline while God would still know all individual actions because of his ability to exist in all times at once. This knowledge does not negate free will, because it is outside of it.

[natty dread]

So you are saying, that there are infinite possible futures, and an omniscient being knows all of them?

But then, in order for us to have free will, we should be able to choose which future timeline we enter, and if an omniscient being knows in advance which future we choose, we again do not have free will.

[Woodruff]

So you are saying, that there are infinite possible futures, and an omniscient being knows all of them?

No. I am saying that there is only one possibility, as that is the thing that occurs (the decision being made). However, our linear perspective of that one possibility means that we cannot possibly know what it is until it happens...that's the nature of linear time. But God is not at all constrained by linear time...he exists outside of linear time and in fact exists in all times (along the same single timeline) because time as a concept simply does not apply in any way to God. God's perspective on the subject is completely different than our perspective on the subject to the extent that his knowledge does not in any way affect our free will. We have the free will to make any choice we can - and he will know what that choice was because he exists in all times.

Let me try another tack...essentially, he knows the future in precisely the same way that we humans know the past. Does our knowledge of the past mean that those impacting the past had no free will? I state that it does not and you would have a very difficult time convincing me that it does. For instance, does our knowledge that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK mean that Lee Harvey Oswald had no free will in making that decision? Of course not.

And now I'm going to steal a point made by fellow poster Mandalorian on this subject because I like the way he explains it:

Imagine if a species of sentient dots that can only move within one straight line. Then imagine covering the whole line with your palm (don't worry, it doesn't hurt the dots ). Most of the dots could not imagine this because to them existing over more them one point of the line at the same time seems logically impossible, but it's easy to you because you can move within more dimensions than they can.
If we apply the same principle to God, then all we need for him is the ability to move within a couple more dimensions in addition to our four and it becomes logically plausible for him to exist in many different moments "at once".

But then, in order for us to have free will, we should be able to choose which future timeline we enter, and if an omniscient being knows in advance which future we choose, we again do not have free will.

I'm not talking about multiple timelines, I'm speaking only of a single timeline (I don't particularly buy multiple dimensions and such). But the different perspective between God and us makes the two non-interactive.

[natty dread]

No. I am saying that there is only one possibility, as that is the thing that occurs (the decision being made). However, our linear perspective of that one possibility means that we cannot possibly know what it is until it happens...that's the nature of linear time. But God is not at all constrained by linear time...he exists outside of linear time and in fact exists in all times (along the same single timeline) because time as a concept simply does not apply in any way to God. God's perspective on the subject is completely different than our perspective on the subject to the extent that his knowledge does not in any way affect our free will. We have the free will to make any choice we can - and he will know what that choice was because he exists in all times.

I'm sorry, but that sounds a bit far-fetched. If a being were to exist outside of time, this being would in practice be static, and could not affect anything in our timeline. Every action requires time. So this does away with omnipotence again.

Let me try another tack...essentially, he knows the future in precisely the same way that we humans know the past. Does our knowledge of the past mean that those impacting the past had no free will? I state that it does not and you would have a very difficult time convincing me that it does. For instance, does our knowledge that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK mean that Lee Harvey Oswald had no free will in making that decision? Of course not.

Well actually, from our (as in we in the present) perspective they do not have free will. The people of the past cannot suddenly decide "hey, let's do things differently" because they have already done what they have done, and nobody can change the past. So I would state that from our perspective, people of the past no longer have free will.

[Woodruff]

No. I am saying that there is only one possibility, as that is the thing that occurs (the decision being made). However, our linear perspective of that one possibility means that we cannot possibly know what it is until it happens...that's the nature of linear time. But God is not at all constrained by linear time...he exists outside of linear time and in fact exists in all times (along the same single timeline) because time as a concept simply does not apply in any way to God. God's perspective on the subject is completely different than our perspective on the subject to the extent that his knowledge does not in any way affect our free will. We have the free will to make any choice we can - and he will know what that choice was because he exists in all times.

I'm sorry, but that sounds a bit far-fetched. If a being were to exist outside of time, this being would in practice be static, and could not affect anything in our timeline. Every action requires time. So this does away with omnipotence again.

No. Not at all. Time is a human construct that assists in helping humans understand the machinations of the world but does not actually exist. The concept of time only exists to help understand objects that are in motion. Thus, prior to God's creation of the universe (which is when objects first came into motion), there would have been no time, because the whole idea of "time" was unnecessary.

Let me try another tack...essentially, he knows the future in precisely the same way that we humans know the past. Does our knowledge of the past mean that those impacting the past had no free will? I state that it does not and you would have a very difficult time convincing me that it does. For instance, does our knowledge that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK mean that Lee Harvey Oswald had no free will in making that decision? Of course not.

Well actually, from our (as in we in the present) perspective they do not have free will. The people of the past cannot suddenly decide "hey, let's do things differently" because they have already done what they have done, and nobody can change the past. So I would state that from our perspective, people of the past no longer have free will.

"No longer" is irrelevant. Did Lee Harvey Oswald have the free will to make the decision to shoot JFK at that time or not? He certainly did. Our knowledge of that action does not take away his free will to do so at that time. This is precisely the same concept as God's knowledge of our actions - the knowledge that he has does not in any way impact our free will to do so.

You really seem to be self-limiting yourself to the concept of linear time, which is hamstringing your perspective here. Did you look at the "dots" explanation...I believe that's an excellent analogy, also.

[Frigidus]

God being outside time is irrelevant. It's like saying that, as you watch a chain of dominoes fall, that because you aren't in the chain of dominos they didn't necessarily have to knock each other over. It makes no sense.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I've only read the last page in full and a couple posts from the other pages, so i might have missed something, but here's my 2c purely regarding determinism and free will(let's keep god out of it for a while).
First, since imo most debates actually stem from misunderstanding I'll informally define my terms, let me know if you dissagree:

determinism = Starting from a perfect "snapshot" of the beggining of the universe it would be possible to run a simulation of that universe and the result would be indistinguishable from this one. So, the current state of the universe is entirely dependant on it's initial state.

free will = The ability to make a choice that is not externally constrained, as in it is not constrained by things outside of yourself(a guy with a gun to your head). However it will naturally be constrained by things within you(your understanding of evolution makes you believe it is a valid theory and this makes you post on a online risk forum about it, for instance). If our choices wouldn't be internally constrained then they would be simply random.

Now, using those definitions, i believe determinism and free will can coexist.

The key idea here is that we are not outside the universe, we are simply a process, part of the universe, thus even if it would be possible for us to perfectly simulate the universe it doesn't mean all our experiences which influenced our beliefes and decisions are any less valid.
Intiutively we try to look at free will from outside the system: "It is determined that A will choose B so therefore A has no choice", but i think it's ridiculous to look at it like free will should be a roll of the dice, free will isn't randomness as per my definition. And if we allow internal constraints(as i think we must) then we might be able to predict that " A has the internal constraints X,Y,Z and as such will choose B", but that doesn't make A's choice any less valid.

You might say that free will is a "very persistent illusion" or some such, but this seems ridiculous to me. From our point of view it is undistinguishable from "real free will", and we can only see the universe from our point of view, so what exactly makes it an illusion?

As a side note, using those definitions it might also be possible that neither free will nor determinism are true.


Now, to return to the problem with god's omniscience. The problem isn't purely that omniscience implies determinism, the problem is in a omniscient being creating people in a such a way that their internal constraints will lead them to certain choices, and then getting upset that the people made those choices.
Either god has a really bad memory or this just doesn't make sense.

Edit: Holy shit, i only realised how much i wrote after i saw the post. Is it bad that i spent about 35 minutes writing this but it felt like 5 mins?

[Woodruff]

God being outside time is irrelevant. It's like saying that, as you watch a chain of dominoes fall, that because you aren't in the chain of dominos they didn't necessarily have to knock each other over. It makes no sense.

That's a terrible analogy because those dominoes DON'T have any choice. It's a matter of physics.

God being outside of time is not only NOT irrelevant, it is the key piece of information. Again, I refer you to the example using the dots...did you read that one?

[Maugena]

God being outside time is irrelevant. It's like saying that, as you watch a chain of dominoes fall, that because you aren't in the chain of dominos they didn't necessarily have to knock each other over. It makes no sense.

That's a terrible analogy because those dominoes DON'T have any choice. It's a matter of physics.

God being outside of time is not only NOT irrelevant, it is the key piece of information. Again, I refer you to the example using the dots...did you read that one?

That dots example is absolutely retarded.
I'm not even going to bother going into detail.

[Frigidus]

God being outside time is irrelevant. It's like saying that, as you watch a chain of dominoes fall, that because you aren't in the chain of dominos they didn't necessarily have to knock each other over. It makes no sense.

That's a terrible analogy because those dominoes DON'T have any choice. It's a matter of physics.

God being outside of time is not only NOT irrelevant, it is the key piece of information. Again, I refer you to the example using the dots...did you read that one?

What, this?

Imagine if a species of sentient dots that can only move within one straight line. Then imagine covering the whole line with your palm (don't worry, it doesn't hurt the dots ). Most of the dots could not imagine this because to them existing over more them one point of the line at the same time seems logically impossible, but it's easy to you because you can move within more dimensions than they can.
If we apply the same principle to God, then all we need for him is the ability to move within a couple more dimensions in addition to our four and it becomes logically plausible for him to exist in many different moments "at once".

What does that have to do with anything? Are you asserting you are right because God moves in mysterious ways? OK, why is it that if God was "in the timeline" you would agree with me? I think that the perspective you view something from when you know everything about it is irrelevant. You claim that the perspective matters. Why does it matter?

[Snowgun]

I'm sorry, but that sounds a bit far-fetched.

Best quote ever in a thread about god's omnipotence and free will. Someone doesn't have their mind sufficiently open.

Woody and others are right on about matters of perspective and dimensions of existence. The principle tenets of quantum theory rely heavily on much the same concepts, such as reference frames and dilations and expansions of time (and this is within our OWN dimensional set).

There is a reason why Albert Einstein believed in God (as did many of the other prominent physicists of that era).

That dots example is absolutely retarded.
I'm not even going to bother going into detail.

Your argument contradicting the dots example is absolutely retarded. But for reals this time.
I'm not even going to bother going into detail.

[Woodruff]

God being outside of time is not only NOT irrelevant, it is the key piece of information. Again, I refer you to the example using the dots...did you read that one?

That dots example is absolutely retarded.
I'm not even going to bother going into detail.

That's a BRILLIANT rebuttal. Simply brilliant. Now I understand why you frequent these fora, because I don't think we could stand to lose your fine intellectual prowess and outstanding ability to express yourself.

God being outside of time is not only NOT irrelevant, it is the key piece of information. Again, I refer you to the example using the dots...did you read that one?

What, this?

Imagine if a species of sentient dots that can only move within one straight line. Then imagine covering the whole line with your palm (don't worry, it doesn't hurt the dots ). Most of the dots could not imagine this because to them existing over more them one point of the line at the same time seems logically impossible, but it's easy to you because you can move within more dimensions than they can.
If we apply the same principle to God, then all we need for him is the ability to move within a couple more dimensions in addition to our four and it becomes logically plausible for him to exist in many different moments "at once".

What does that have to do with anything? Are you asserting you are right because God moves in mysterious ways? OK, why is it that if God was "in the timeline" you would agree with me? I think that the perspective you view something from when you know everything about it is irrelevant. You claim that the perspective matters. Why does it matter?

That example has nothing at all to do with "mysterious ways". As to your last question, I've explained this in depth several times. And the dot example is a great one in its simplicity. I'm not sure how else I can explain it, given that I've been complicated and I've been simple.

[jonesthecurl]

There is a reason why Albert Einstein believed in God (as did many of the other prominent physicists of that era).

Albert Einstein said:
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

[Frigidus]

God being outside of time is not only NOT irrelevant, it is the key piece of information. Again, I refer you to the example using the dots...did you read that one?

That dots example is absolutely retarded.
I'm not even going to bother going into detail.

That's a BRILLIANT rebuttal. Simply brilliant. Now I understand why you frequent these fora, because I don't think we could stand to lose your fine intellectual prowess and outstanding ability to express yourself.

God being outside of time is not only NOT irrelevant, it is the key piece of information. Again, I refer you to the example using the dots...did you read that one?

What, this?

Imagine if a species of sentient dots that can only move within one straight line. Then imagine covering the whole line with your palm (don't worry, it doesn't hurt the dots ). Most of the dots could not imagine this because to them existing over more them one point of the line at the same time seems logically impossible, but it's easy to you because you can move within more dimensions than they can.
If we apply the same principle to God, then all we need for him is the ability to move within a couple more dimensions in addition to our four and it becomes logically plausible for him to exist in many different moments "at once".

What does that have to do with anything? Are you asserting you are right because God moves in mysterious ways? OK, why is it that if God was "in the timeline" you would agree with me? I think that the perspective you view something from when you know everything about it is irrelevant. You claim that the perspective matters. Why does it matter?

That example has nothing at all to do with "mysterious ways". As to your last question, I've explained this in depth several times. And the dot example is a great one in its simplicity. I'm not sure how else I can explain it, given that I've been complicated and I've been simple.

Perhaps start by not being wrong. (JKs, much <3)

[Woodruff]

God being outside of time is not only NOT irrelevant, it is the key piece of information. Again, I refer you to the example using the dots...did you read that one?

That dots example is absolutely retarded.
I'm not even going to bother going into detail.

That's a BRILLIANT rebuttal. Simply brilliant. Now I understand why you frequent these fora, because I don't think we could stand to lose your fine intellectual prowess and outstanding ability to express yourself.

God being outside of time is not only NOT irrelevant, it is the key piece of information. Again, I refer you to the example using the dots...did you read that one?

What, this?

Imagine if a species of sentient dots that can only move within one straight line. Then imagine covering the whole line with your palm (don't worry, it doesn't hurt the dots ). Most of the dots could not imagine this because to them existing over more them one point of the line at the same time seems logically impossible, but it's easy to you because you can move within more dimensions than they can.
If we apply the same principle to God, then all we need for him is the ability to move within a couple more dimensions in addition to our four and it becomes logically plausible for him to exist in many different moments "at once".

What does that have to do with anything? Are you asserting you are right because God moves in mysterious ways? OK, why is it that if God was "in the timeline" you would agree with me? I think that the perspective you view something from when you know everything about it is irrelevant. You claim that the perspective matters. Why does it matter?

That example has nothing at all to do with "mysterious ways". As to your last question, I've explained this in depth several times. And the dot example is a great one in its simplicity. I'm not sure how else I can explain it, given that I've been complicated and I've been simple.

Perhaps start by not being wrong. (JKs, much <3)

Been there, done that.