A question about an Omniscient God

[Jack]

There is no "pre" for the Observer.

That one sentence clarified your point to me.

[Rex]

The problem is that most posts here are tying omniscience with other abilities and applying the natural constraint of time on it. In post 45 I proposed a scenario where the different god-like features were completely separated from each other and I could see no reason to conclude that omniscience, without the use of other abilities or constraints of time, eliminated free will.

The Observer I noted in that post would have all knowledge. All knowledge requires the entity to not be bound by time. Humans are bound by time and so is free will--the exercise of a choice at this moment in time (the present). Free will is not a characteristic/concept that can be identified or measured or understood by an Observer because there is no present, future, or past to the observer. Omniscience is not a concept that can be measured or identified by a human because we are tethered to this moment in time.

We are incorrectly applying our limitation of time, as well as our limitation of corporeal existence, to the Observer. The Observer cannot know all by snapshot and then follow us at our perceived present moment in time. There is no "pre" for the Observer. The impotent and incorporeal Observer cannot be bound by our concept of existence because it does not "exist." The Observer cannot act and therefor cannot "determine."

If there is no "pre" for the Observer and the Observer is incapable of "determination" then there is no reason to believe an omniscient Observer creates predetermination.

I think we are incorrectly identifying omniscience as the possible nullifier of free will when it is actually time, and the concept of "outside of time," that could be the nullifier. The inexistence of time, regardless of knowledge, or Observers, or gods, is what makes us think of what "happened" as if we were somehow at the end of timelessness looking back over all the decisions that were made.

As a human, I know that I am currently making decisions and that the decisions I am about to make will become the decisions I am making and the decisions I have made. If, somehow, the concept of timelessness exists then I may come to the conclusion that I have no free will because timelessness eliminates the concept of decision. And it does--from the timeless perspective. But from my perspective, decision eliminates the concept of timelessness.

I understand all of this, and I agree with some of it [even though it's speculation]

Ultimately what I'm saying is we cannot do anything different than what an all knowing creator created us for. This, at its core, is not free-will. Call it what you want, be it predetermination or something else- these ideas are completely incompatible

[Questatement]

It cannot be free if has "required methods"

So if you are offered a job which, I think we can agree will have requirements for you to perform upon in order to keep it, be rewarded, etc - yet you refuse to take the job, the very aspect of the job's requirements nullified your free will choice when deciding to turn down that job?

What if you turned down the job simply because your spouse would be your supervisor and that didn't sound pleasant to you? Better yet, what about those who took the job despite the requirements?

[Rex]

So if you are offered a job which, I think we can agree will have requirements for you to perform upon in order to keep it, be rewarded, etc - yet you refuse to take the job, the very aspect of the job's requirements nullified your free will choice when deciding to turn down that job?

What if you turned down the job simply because your spouse would be your supervisor and that didn't sound pleasant to you?

This isn't even relative. What you said [and what I replied to] was

"However, if that path is to be followed via a free-will decision, it must be followed according to the required methods."

You're saying- for us to choose, we must choose in methods that god requires us to choose in? I'm confused? nothing about that is free.

ps. you never answered my question

[Questatement]

You're saying- for us to choose, we must choose in methods that god requires us to choose in? I'm confused? nothing about that is free.

ps. you never answered my question

I'm confused too. Okay, in your opinion, what should or should not be free and why?

[Muckraker]

Ultimately what I'm saying is we cannot do anything different than what an all knowing creator created us for. This, at its core, is not free-will.

I can agree with this statement but I don't feel the determining factor in our lack of free will, in that example, is the omniscience. By being the creator, the entity has already acted. If the creator is still active in our lives then he can just as easily be driving the choices as we make them. Also, if the entity is or has actively "determined" which route we will each go, and that being truly has omniscience (which cannot possibly be bound by time), then that entity itself is not capable of making a choice.

If God's action caused me to have a son, and God's action itself is driven by the knowledge of all, then God doesn't have a choice either. If God does still have a choice then omniscience is not what is eliminating free will.

[Rex]

I'm confused too. Okay, in your opinion, what should or should not be free and why?

Well free-will is a tricky matter. I dont think it exists in the first place, but that's besides the point. This is my premise [in regards to this thread.]- If every moment of your live is known abosutley- then you cannot alter it in any way. If you cannot alter the events in your life, then you cannot choose. Not freely atleast.

For you to freely will, your choices would have to be completely divorced from a distributing authority.

[Affluence]

Brilliant, I think I agree.

The outcome of a free decision can be known as long as the knower had zero influence on the decision.

But does simply knowing the decision constitute "interaction" and invalidate it's "freeness"?

So let me see if i Understand this.

The ability of some one knowing what I'm gonna choose and their ability to interact with me and / or their ability to influence the environment precludes me from choosing ?

Can you tie those strings for me? You guys talk about it but it's like your going around in circles, never ending at the final answer.

Have you thought about the fact that something being omnipotent could " instill choices (true freewill) in a recipient ?

I have a daughter and she likes avocados. At the dinner table I know she will choose the avocados. Except for a rare event, she will go for the avocados. NOw, because its like a habit for her to choose the avocados she will use less freewill. I propose there is less effort on her part cuz its like automatic that she goes for the avocados. I propose however, by me "knowing". Doesn't preclude her choices or effect them in any way.

[Jack]

The ability of some one knowing what I'm gonna choose and their ability to interact with me and / or their ability to influence the environment precludes me from choosing ?

Not that it precludes you from choosing. The question is whether or not omniscience precludes you from choosing freely; whether or not the absolute knowledge of your future means that all your choices are predetermined and thus not truly free. In other words, are you free to do something that an omniscient being didn't know you were going to do and if you do something unexpected does that mean the being is not omniscient?

I propose however, by me "knowing". Doesn't preclude her choices or effect them in any way.

This scenario isn't applicable unless you claim to be omniscient. Your knowledge is limited, not absolute.

[Affluence]

Elusive, let me build a scenario for all of us to examine, then tell me if you agree.



let's call this choice- pre determined experiment.



we place 3 men in 3 different rooms. we ask them to follow instructions. stand up, sit down, sit on the chair and sit on the floor for example. we tape record the whole thing on video.


First guy followed all the instructions given. Exibit 2 did everything but he did not sit on the floor. He refused that. Exibit C was not very cooperative at all and refused many of the commands but not only that, he would also perform opposite; they say stand he sits, they asked him to sing and he growls.

Now we sit and observe the video tape of
the experiment.

Part two for Elusive, itsdarts, Jack, Peter and Rex

Sry, my android phone is no longer compatible with Volconvo since the changes in the website. So i finally made it to my computer.

Now, we review the video tape. What your saying is that since we " know " what the 3 men in the " choices= predetermined " experiment are gonna choose (we saw the tape), this means they actually did not choose ? How does that work exactly?

Elusivetruth keep in mine through all of this I propose that the reason many of the forum members are arguing the facts against freewill and against an omniscient creator is because they are doing every thing to disprove such a creator. They try to explain away the creator so " they don't have to believe" in the creator. They make it so bizarre and explain that no way omnipotence can exist cuz of this and that. We really don't have free will cuz of this and that only cuz they are not comfortable with the idea of it. They reject the creator to accompany their preferred philosophy.

in my opinion.

Notice I did not mention the "G" word in my post.

[Jack]

They try to explain away the creator so " they don't have to believe" in the creator.

Not the case at all. We're using the claims made by believers themselves to show the inconsistencies in believing in an omniscient creator while at the same time thinking they have something they call "free will". We are debating theism as proposed by theists. We could just as easily be theists raising this question. In fact this is a topic that theologians have debated for centuries.

[Affluence]

Not that it precludes you from choosing. The question is whether or not omniscience precludes you from choosing freely; whether or not the absolute knowledge of your future means that all your choices are predetermined and thus not truly free. In other words, are you free to do something that an omniscient being didn't know you were going to do and if you do something unexpected does that mean the being is not omniscient?


This scenario isn't applicable unless you claim to be omniscient. Your knowledge is limited, not absolute.

Okay Jack You are hinting on what my philosophy of freewill actually is. You are going deeper to say we have choices, we have free choices and we have truly free choices. Which I agree with.

Perhaps we can agree that if freewill exists, it may vary depending on the situation, It has a varying degree.

In this Scenario we have a teenager (boy) left at home for the day in front of the computer ) with an internet connection. The boy has "discovered himself" recently and likes to play with himself. He has the whole day to himself while the family is away( rare and desired event). So we might say the " freewill " of the boy is severely limited not to play with himself for instance. Or I would say the freewill of this boy only for this matter is equal to the freewill of a bee not to collect pollen.

So I would say there are varying degrees of freewill.

The chain-smoker has little freewill not to light up. But I still interject - " there is still some choice making " to continue smoking or to quit. I would say the amount of struggle required to make the decision dictates the freewill.

If it is an easy; almost automatic decision, There exists little freewill. If it takes tremendous struggle in making the decision; therein lies freewill at it's finest.

Further, I propose the more able and powerful we get, the greater freewill we have. The more choices and power we have the more we hold sway cause over our environment.

A bum has little freewill to not sleep on the sidewalk and beg for money on the corner. Cuz that's what he is used to doing.

President Obama however, has loads of freewill because he is so much more able. He can for instance hop on a plane and go visit this bum and help him out. Or not. He has so many more choices at his fingertips. The Bum, however can not hop on a plane and visit the white house for instance.

Lastly Jack you mentioned ( future and predetermined) I want to explain my theory on how choices and a predetermined future co-mingle just fine. Another few guys wanted to hear that from me. It may not be appropriate to explain int here. Let me see if I can find the post where it was asked of me. Stay tuned. Thanks.