A question about an Omniscient God

[cfreetenor]

@Muckraker

I completely agree with you on 95% of what you're saying, but I think you're incorrectly applying the concept of time in what is really a dimensional dilemma. I'm sure you've drawn a 'cube' on a flat paper before. It is a 2D rendering that can give the impression of a 3D image. Have you ever noticed that it if you change your perspective a bit, you could flip the cube around? This is effectively a 'decision' made in the second dimension that is expressed in the third dimension. Just as the decisions we make in the third dimension, moment to moment, manifest themselves at later points in time (the fourth dimension). I don't really see a reason for time to be a necessary constraint for the capacity of decision. Theoretically, a decision by someone capable of omniscience of our own dimension would just be expressed in the dimension superior to their own existence.

ETA: To clarify, I don't actually believe free will exists. I think the discovery of each moment gives the impression of free will as we are constantly observing and evaluating, but it is even our own observations and evaluations that are being played out to us. I do think that this 'impression' of free will is a constant for any conscious being on any supposed plane.

[Jack]

So I would say there are varying degrees of freewill.

I think what you're doing is mistaking an abundance of choices with free will. Just having a variety of options to choose from doesn't speak to the issue of free will. If the future is predetermined and known to an omniscient being then the number of choices you face doesn't matter, you'll still choose the option that you were predetermined to chose. Free will would only truly be free if you chose an option not anticipated by the omniscient being, and that would invalidate its omniscience.

[cfreetenor]

Free will would only truly be free if you chose an option not anticipated by the omniscient being, and that would invalidate its omniscience.

I have a problem with this, I think. Why would agreement with an omniscient being negate 'free will' per se?

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

I have a problem with this, I think. Why would agreement with an omniscient being negate 'free will' per se?

It's not that agreement with some omniscient entity negates free will. It's the very nature of omniscience that negates free will.

[Ender]

Foreknowledge of an event does not mean free will is gone. If I know what choice you will make, it does not imply control of your choice.

[Jack]

Foreknowledge of an event does not mean free will is gone. If I know what choice you will make, it does not imply control of your choice.

No, but it does imply I am not free to make any choice other than the one you know I'll make. I may believe I'm exercising free will, but in the larger scheme of things I'm only performing exactly as you knew I would. Indeed, I had no other choice but to do what you knew I would.

[Ender]

But you didn't want to choose anything else. Knowledge does not imply control. If I know every single thing you will do from now until you die, that has absolutely no affect on any decision you make. I may be able to see the path of your neurons and watch the wheels turn, but you're still holding the crank.

[Jack]

But you didn't want to choose anything else. Knowledge does not imply control.

I agreed that control is not necessarily implied by omniscience, but that's basically irrelevant. Whether or not the omniscient being is the cause of my actions, the very fact it knows absolutely that I will do a certain thing or make a certain choice invalidates my freedom to choose otherwise. By definition an omniscient being would know, but not necessarily cause, everything that has, is or will occur. Nothing can happen that the being is not aware of.

But you didn't want to choose anything else.

This does create a problem for Christianity if we move from the concept of an abstract omniscient being to a more concrete like the god of Abraham. Christians say that god doesn't want anyone to be lost and that non-believers have chosen to not believe. That means that non-believers choose to go against god's omniscience. Either that or it means god knows non-believers will choose not to believe and that means non-believers are not responsible for their non-belief; it's god's intention that they don't.

[cfreetenor]

It looks like we need to get down to the nitty gritty and really define what we mean when we say 'free'. What exactly does it mean? Does it imply randomness? Or does it imply an actor being able to effect the decisions that appear to make the most sense from their point of reference at the time?

Essentially, you are implying that accurate prediction precludes sentient thought. The problem with this is, sentient thought is a tangible and measurable thing. If you break down man into his most basic components, every organ and nerve has a definite function. The function of our brain is to both decode information provided to us by our sensory perception and to synthesize it into presumably favorable actions or 'decisions' that it directs our body to act upon. It is the latter that many refer to as consciousness or 'will.' For this member to act freely (meaning unimpeded, fully efficient, what have you), it has to be fully capable of making the most favorable decisions apparent at the time for the survival of the organism.

Freedom and predictability aren't mutually exclusive, just as freedom and randomness aren't mutually inclusive. Yes, freedom implies a sense of lawlessness that would seem to contradict predestination, but you can't forget that however free it may be, the function of 'will' in sentient beings has a definite role that is not at all contradicted by any level of observation.

Essentially, as long as the purpose of the will is not impeded, it is free to function as it was meant to. Even if, accounting for the omniscience of any being, it really only came down to a single choice in every instance.

[Muckraker]

Nothing can happen that the being is not aware of.

How does time fit into your understanding of omniscience? It seems to me that time is the deciding factor. If I have free will today then, tomorrow, would my knowledge of what happened today invalidate my free will today?

I don't see how omniscience can coexist with time. Nothing will "happen" for an omniscient entity because there is no present, past, or future moment for things to happen in.

The 90-year-old me, with all the memories of my life, will not invalidate the free will of the present me. I don't see why that would change if the 90-year-old me, the me today, and baby me are all lumped together due to the absence of time.

[Jack]

I don't see how omniscience can coexist with time. Nothing will "happen" for an omniscient entity because there is no present, past, or future moment for things to happen in.

Yes, well that, along with quantum mechanics, are both topics that tend to boggle my mind rather than produce coherent thought. Add to that the vast differences in time-scales between humans and the universe and I'm totally adrift. I really have no idea what omniscience might imply outside time.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

C.S. Lewis put forth a similar argument regarding omniscience and free will. His argument is essentially that God cannot preclude free will, because God exists outside of time. Others have taken the time to refute that point.

Omniscience - even if it implies knowledge that is not bounded by time (i.e. a nonlinear view of time) - still precludes free will. That's simply because events within the universe happen within a definite time frame. In other words, if you want to absolutely define some event, you must include three spatial dimensions as well as time. An omniscient being having a nonlinear view of time would not mean that such a being would not know when an event took/is taking/will take place. It would have to, or else it's knowledge of said event would be bounded and it would not be omniscient. So long as the event is absolutely known, then the free will of any agent taking part in said event is compromised and is not free.