Free will and omniscience

[Yasa]

1. Free will:

One has free will when his actions/choices are contingent. That is, the person can do, or not do something. He can choose something or not choose something. Give a certain decision, it is perfectly reasonable that he could have decided otherwise. If it is not true that the person could have chosen otherwise, then the person does not have free will.

2. Omniscience:

A god who is omniscient knows all, including the future, knows every action, decision, etc. that you will make.

3. If such a god's knowledge of the future is not false, then the actions foreseen for you must indeed happen and be unchangeable. In other words, they are not contingent and you are not free to choose otherwise.

4. Therefore, either a god cannot be omniscient and we have free will, or we do not have free will and a god could be omniscient.


Expansion on premise 3:

It is clear that if a being could see the future actions of everyone, then in order for such a being's knowledge of the future to be accurate, those actions must necessarily happen. They cannot happen otherwise, or else such a being's knowledge would indeed be false and thus we would not consider that being to have omniscience. However, should every action necessarily happen in a certain way, those actions are not contingent--they cannot happen otherwise. This implies that free will is merely an illusion.

[ryanatau]

This supposes that free action and foreknowledge are incompatible. I know I am going to finish typing this sentence yet I still had a free choice not too. Of course I am assuming that free will is actually possible without an omniscient God. If it is possible without a God it is possible with one. Foreknowledge of an event does not imply the lack of free choice nor does the lack of foreknowledge imply free will.

[Yasa]

Quote by: ryanatau This supposes that free action and foreknowledge are incompatible. I know I am going to finish typing this sentence yet I still had a free choice not too. Of course I am assuming that free will is actually possible without an omniscient God. If it is possible without a God it is possible with one. Foreknowledge of an event does not imply the lack of free choice nor does the lack of foreknowledge imply free will.

Wrong. An omniscient god, at time A, will know the future of someone's actions. If we call the result of the actions time B, when faced with a choice at time A, there is no contingency to the actions about to occur because the result must be what is foreseen in B. In order for the free will described above to exist, the future of anyone's actions cannot be foreseen by any being.

It's simple logic. If, before an action is performed, someone has access to the future and knows what will happen, then automatically that action cannot be contingent. If it is, then the being who foresees the future may be in fault and thus is not really seeing the future.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Yasa It's simple logic. If, before an action is performed, someone has access to the future and knows what will happen, then automatically that action cannot be contingent. If it is, then the being who foresees the future may be in fault and thus is not really seeing the future.

Its not simple logic. If a being knows A will happen as opposed to B it does not mean that B did not have the potentiality of being with out have the possibility. Free choice could very well mean that a person has the potential to do act B with out the possibility. SO, is free will about potential or actual being? It is clear that two actions A and B cannot both be (and thus cannot both be possible) yet they can both have potential being. So it is the potential being and not the possible being of two events that give an actor freedom.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Yasa 1. Free will: One has free will when his actions/choices are contingent. That is, the person can do, or not do something. He can choose something or not choose something. Give a certain decision, it is perfectly reasonable that he could have decided otherwise. If it is not true that the person could have chosen otherwise, then the person does not have free will. 2. Omniscience: A god who is omniscient knows all, including the future, knows every action, decision, etc. that you will make. 3. If such a god's knowledge of the future is not false, then the actions foreseen for you must indeed happen and be unchangeable. In other words, they are not contingent and you are not free to choose otherwise. 4. Therefore, either a god cannot be omniscient and we have free will, or we do not have free will and a god could be omniscient. Expansion on premise 3: It is clear that if a being could see the future actions of everyone, then in order for such a being's knowledge of the future to be accurate, those actions must necessarily happen. They cannot happen otherwise, or else such a being's knowledge would indeed be false and thus we would not consider that being to have omniscience. However, should every action necessarily happen in a certain way, those actions are not contingent--they cannot happen otherwise. This implies that free will is merely an illusion.

If the person has free will they can make limited choices, what hat to wear today, or not to wear at hat at all. Just because God can predict what hat you will pick does not mean you did not have a free choice.

If I open the front door I know ahead of time my cat wants to run outside that does not mean I have prevented it's choice to stay inside.

Let us say that someone read the whole Bible and wanted to obey every single commandment and moral concept, well, he would be powerless to do so, he can crank up all the free will to be perfect and still fall well below the mark. That is not in the cards.

Let us say by free will you wanted to violate those commandements and morality standards, that would be easy, like taking candy from a baby.

Point being; There are things you can make a choice about doing or not doing, and things over which you have no choice. None the less you can use free will to make a choice even if that choice does not empower a manifested destiny. You can chose to live a "sin free" life but find that you are stuck sinning in non-conformity with your will. The unwilling sinner as compared to the willing sinner. Which is like having sex without conscent or with conscent.

It could be argued that you will complete a disteny, do matter if you wear and hat or not, because the choice of a hat makes no difference in what will happen.

You cannot pull back for making a wrong choice unless you already had the power in you to do so. If logic did not rule over the emotional urges.

Now President Buch has free will, yet he is so predictable I can sit here and and tell you what his next speech will be about.

[Yasa]

Quote by: ryanatau Its not simple logic. If a being knows A will happen as opposed to B it does not mean that B did not have the potentiality of being with out have the possibility. Free choice could very well mean that a person has the potential to do act B with out the possibility. SO, is free will about potential or actual being? It is clear that two actions A and B cannot both be (and thus cannot both be possible) yet they can both have potential being. So it is the potential being and not the possible being of two events that give an actor freedom.

As far as my understanding of the human language goes, potential and possible are quite synonymous. potential - Definitions from Dictionary.com demonstrates this. Please clarify the difference.

As soon as someone knows the future of an action, that actions is no longer contingent because it is not possible that it can happen another way. This is the same as saying it does not have the potential of occuring otherwise.

Note that I only defend that this is true when someone has knowledge of the future and that before this time it would be contingent. However, this is not the case with god being an eternal omniscient being.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Technosoul If the person has free will they can make limited choices, what hat to wear today, or not to wear at hat at all. Just because God can predict what hat you will pick does not mean you did not have a free choice.

If you'll note the above argument, as soon as someone knows your future actions, your actions are no longer contingent. The fact that someone can see what will happen means that nothing else can happen (or evidently they can't see what will happen). If nothing else can happen then your choice is not free.

Want free will? Don't let anyone see the future.

[LadiesMan217]

1. Free will: One has free will when his actions/choices are contingent. That is, the person can do, or not do something. He can choose something or not choose something. Give a certain decision, it is perfectly reasonable that he could have decided otherwise. If it is not true that the person could have chosen otherwise, then the person does not have free will. 2. Omniscience: A god who is omniscient knows all, including the future, knows every action, decision, etc. that you will make. 3. If such a god's knowledge of the future is not false, then the actions foreseen for you must indeed happen and be unchangeable. In other words, they are not contingent and you are not free to choose otherwise. 4. Therefore, either a god cannot be omniscient and we have free will, or we do not have free will and a god could be omniscient. Expansion on premise 3: It is clear that if a being could see the future actions of everyone, then in order for such a being's knowledge of the future to be accurate, those actions must necessarily happen. They cannot happen otherwise, or else such a being's knowledge would indeed be false and thus we would not consider that being to have omniscience. However, should every action necessarily happen in a certain way, those actions are not contingent--they cannot happen otherwise. This implies that free will is merely an illusion.

I disagree with your assumption although it appears to make sense on the surface it really does not. IMO omniscience does not have an effect on free will. If you are a given a choice and I already know what you are going to choose, were you any less free to make that choice? The answer is no.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Yasa If you'll note the above argument, as soon as someone knows your future actions, your actions are no longer contingent. The fact that someone can see what will happen means that nothing else can happen (or evidently they can't see what will happen). If nothing else can happen then your choice is not free. Want free will? Don't let anyone see the future.

Again just because nothing else can happen does not mean nothing else has the potential of happening.

At this point I think it is a semantic argument, or at least an undecidable issue. Not that I necessarily believe what I wrote above but I think it should be clear that the issue can be looked at in other ways that are just as valid.

I gave a good argument for free will as potential to act. Have you ever read this story:

A young Persian gardener said to his Prince: 'Save me! I met death in the garden this morning, and he gave me a threatening look. I wish that tonight, by some miracle, I might be far away, in Ispahan.' The Prince lent him his swiftest horse. That afternoon, as he was walking in the garden, the Prince came face to face with Death. 'Why,' he said, 'did you give my gardener a threatening look this morning?; 'It was not a threatening look,' replied Death. 'It was an expression of surprise. For I saw him here this morning, and knew that I would take him in Ispahan tonight.'

That is The look of Death by Jean Cocteau.

[Yasa]

Quote by: ryanatau Again just because nothing else can happen does not mean nothing else has the potential of happening.

Contradiction. If something has the potential of happening, then it can happen.

Quote by: ryanatau I gave a good argument for free will as potential to act.

I beg to differ. Potential to act means that someone can act, or someone could not act. Should someone know before hand that someone will act, then no longer can that person not act, unless of course the person seeing the future does not indeed know that that someone will act.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Yasa Contradiction. If something has the potential of happening, then it can happen. I beg to differ. Potential to act means that someone can act, or someone could not act. Should someone know before hand that someone will act, then no longer can that person not act, unless of course the person seeing the future does not indeed know that that someone will act.

Then you just misunderstand the philosophical use of potential. In some schools of philosophy potential being and actual refer to the formal and material being of an object. A phone has the actual being of a phone and the potential being of a desk and a chair and whatever else.

So yes, potential means a person could pick A or B. Even though they will pick A it does not change the fact that B was an option.

[Piscean]

It is clear that if a being could see the future actions of everyone, then in order for such a being's knowledge of the future to be accurate, those actions must necessarily happen. They cannot happen otherwise, or else such a being's knowledge would indeed be false and thus we would not consider that being to have omniscience. However, should every action necessarily happen in a certain way, those actions are not contingent--they cannot happen otherwise. This implies that free will is merely an illusion.

You nailed it free will is an illusion. Everyone is who and what they are supposed to be. Everything is God's responsibility and there is no changing your destiny.

[Dr_Acula]

The whole thing is potential. Suppose you have two possibilities, so they both have potential. But what is potential? Ignorance. It refers to what you don't know, and therefore you are uncertain which decision will prevail. But then the decision is made and only one possibility prooved to be really possible, and the other one was never really possible. You just didn't know, you didn't have enough knowledge, so you were forced to say that both had potential. If you knew all the facts, then you would see that only one option will happen.

Some said that free will is having potential in various decisions. But potential is nothing by itself, it's just a way of representing ignorance. In this sense, it could be said that the strict definition of free will you gave is indeed an illusion.
Yet still, lets not forget that the decision made was the one that prevailed after the individual assesed the situation and choose the course of action that HE decided was most suitable, so in that sense, it was still the will of the individual, free or not.

[freefallife]

Free will and gods omniscience are indeed contradictory. The foundation of god's omniscience stems from his "plan" for us all. Upon the creation of the universe, he had a predestined plan for my life, and knew every decision I would ever make. In other words, he would have created me to fulfill those decisions. A good analogy would be to program a robot to run a specific course and then set it in motion. Would you say that the robot had free will, even though different courses were "possible". No.

[Walrus]

If we accept the argument that god’s omniscience equates to predestination, then this would also apply to god himself, therefore he would not possess freewill and god without freewill would not be god.

[Morality Games]

Its not simple logic. If a being knows A will happen as opposed to B it does not mean that B did not have the potentiality of being with out have the possibility. Free choice could very well mean that a person has the potential to do act B with out the possibility. SO, is free will about potential or actual being? It is clear that two actions A and B cannot both be (and thus cannot both be possible) yet they can both have potential being. So it is the potential being and not the possible being of two events that give an actor freedom.

Potentiality, possibility, probability, and capacity reflect more of the nature of the human mind than the nature of reality in general -- in reality, there is only actuality.

Potentiality is a ... well, I don't want to say illusion because of my dislike of the term, but for the purposes of this thead, there you go -- because of our creativity, we are able to imagine on basis of the available information that we can do many things, but even this analysis of the possibilities is part of a systematic way of behaving. Ultimately, we are bound to pick just one of the possibilities, and like the activity of analyzing the possibilities itself, this depends on the circumstances pertaining to the deciding agent.

If we accept the argument that god’s omniscience equates to predestination, then this would also apply to god himself, therefore he would not possess freewill and god without freewill would not be god.

Presupposes a god-entity must have free will to qualify as a god. However, the properties of a God are uncertain.

Like the rest of us, I suppose a God would act according to its nature (the entirety of its existence).

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Morality Games Potentiality is a ... well, I don't want to say illusion because of my dislike of the term, but for the purposes of this thead, there you go -- because of our creativity, we are able to imagine on basis of the available information that we can do many things, but even this analysis of the possibilities is part of a systematic way of behaving. Ultimately, we are bound to pick just one of the possibilities, and like the activity of analyzing the possibilities itself, this depends on the circumstances pertaining to the deciding agent.

Just because only one option can possibly be picked does not mean that free will is non-existent. Your supposing that an immutable nature creates our being when it could be true that our being creates our nature. Our choice create what we are.

(I know you said you hate the word but still). Potentiality is not an "Illusion." What would that even entail? Change is an illusion. Being is an illusion. All these make sense because anything can be an illusion if our beliefs entail it to be so. Not everything that does not exist is an illusion. Granted only actuality has being and potentiality is the privation of being but in such a way that it is susceptible to become. So it is not wholly non-being but the absence of being with the ability of becoming.

As for God, it supposes that God is a non-transcendent entity. Most theist hold God as that which is beyond time and eternally unchanging which means even with foreknowledge God could still have free will (which would seem to contradict his immutability.).

[Walrus]

Quote by: Morality Games Presupposes a god-entity must have free will to qualify as a god. However, the properties of a God are uncertain. Like the rest of us, I suppose a God would act according to its nature (the entirety of its existence).

If the properties of the god-entity are uncertain then the perception of god’s omniscience would also be uncertain.

[Morality Games]

(I know you said you hate the word but still). Potentiality is not an "Illusion." What would that even entail? Change is an illusion. Being is an illusion. All these make sense because anything can be an illusion if our beliefs entail it to be so. Not everything that does not exist is an illusion. Granted only actuality has being and potentiality is the privation of being but in such a way that it is susceptible to become. So it is not wholly non-being but the absence of being with the ability of becoming.

This is part of the reason I dislike the term. Remember that the world can be artificially divided in two -- the 'apparent world' of your mind's eye and the world-itself (actuality). The first is part of the second, but the second goes far beyond the first (aka, the mind, or nervous system, is part of the world -- the mind is part of actuality even as it processes actuality as if it were an entity apart).

If humans were gods, what then? We would probably understand fully the physical processes that characterize existence, down to every nuance and detail -- to us the universe would appear as a system without free will, with no contingency, possibility, probability, or anything of the sort. That is the true condition of reality. Our mind would comprehend the systematic nature of things completely.

Humans lack this "God's perspective" -- to us, even as it acts like one, the universe can never seem like a system (well, artificially under science). We know that things happen, but do not comprehend fully the intricate web of cause-and-effect which allows orderly existence to be. In order to compensate for our inability to make sense of the system, humans (and possibly other living organisms) developed intuitive understandings of things like 'potentiality', 'possibility', 'probability', and 'capacity' (which we can use as a base for developing more elaborate concepts concerning these things). These are instruments for making reality comprehensible on terms appreciable to living organisms, not for mirroring nature point-for-point.

It can be said, even as they are "illusions", human nature is structured to perceive these things as though they had the same existential status as actuality.

I prefer the word 'instruments' to illusions.

If the properties of the god-entity are uncertain then the perception of god’s omniscience would also be uncertain.

For all we know, there could be a being which created this universe (or the multiverse) who isn't omniscient at all, that omniscience is not a requirement to be a Creator anymore than a programmar must understand every detail and nuance of a computer system.

[obvious child]

Agreed, especially if such a God exists outside of time and was the origin of matter. If God exists outside of time and therefore knows everything that will happen to something it creates, all actions have been predetermined before anything aside from God exists.