<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 12 2005, 03:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 12 2005, 03:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Apr 12 2005, 03:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Apr 12 2005, 03:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Science is derived from logic, yes. Yes, God is also bound by some aspects of science (those that derive directly from logic, such as areas of mathematics).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> All science is derived from logic, it is a fundamental component, to state otherwise suggests a poor understanding of scientific method. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Science is derived from the scientific method, which is a logical device to expand our knowledge of the universe in a truthful fashion. Some areas of knowledge (Mathematics, Logic, etc) derive directly from plain logic, itself. Other areas of knowledge (Biology, Physics, etc) derive not just from logic and th scientific method, but also from our flawed (by definition, if we had all the information, allowing us to make perfectly informed conclusions, then we wouldn't have any reason to do science int he first place) observations of the universe. Most fields of science don't contain ultimate truths about the universe, but the best truths that we can derive from the data that we have obtained, resulting in conclusions that are approximations of ultimate truths.
Sorry, I have to nitpick. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Indeed. I didn't mean to imply that science always gives us the right answers or anythin like that, only that logic is a fundamental building block of science.
I don't belive that free will and predestination contradict each other. Using free will to chose an option, a person will always choose what they think is best for that situation. Therefore you will always choose that one thing.
Given a choice between your favorite food and your least favorite food, I could predetermine what you will pick based on your likes and dislikes. Everyone would choose their favorite food.
However if you knew that you were being "tested" on which you pick, you might choose the other but if someone knew that is what your personality is like, then they would know that you would choose the other based on the information at hand.
A person is free to choose what ever they want to, but what they choose won't be different even if that point in time was repeated.
Basically you are bound to one single path based on your own wishes and wants.
But what if you were faced with two identical choices? Like choosing between two superficially identical tennis balls to play a game with? It's a free choice, but no one could predict that in advance what someone would always choose.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 12 2005, 03:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 12 2005, 03:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But what if you were faced with two identical choices? Like choosing between two superficially identical tennis balls to play a game with? It's a free choice, but no one could predict that in advance what someone would always choose. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Good point. I would argue that if someone, God in this case, already has knowledge of every thing that has/is/will happen. Then it would be like a mystery film. We are stuck in the film while it is running not knowing what will happen next, however the other person, God, has already seen the film and thus knows the murderer from the start. If the film is replayed the murderer is not changed. Replace murderer with ball and there is your answer.
<a href='http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html' target='_blank'>Schrodinger's cat</a> can also be relevant to this discussion. God has collapsed the quantum state of the universe into 1 distinct possibility. Even though you are using free will to pick what ball you are using. God has observed what you will do so when the time comes for you to pick, you will pick the one that God knows you will pick.
Introducing quantum relativity into a discussion what have I done <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Vahn Paktu, it isn't just God's omniscience that removes free will. If God creates the initial state of the universe, then assuming that the universe is deterministic, He is the one who makes all the decisions and there is no free will.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 12 2005, 05:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 12 2005, 05:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Vahn Paktu, it isn't just God's omniscience that removes free will. If God creates the initial state of the universe, then assuming that the universe is deterministic, He is the one who makes all the decisions and there is no free will. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ...
So... the universe is deterministic if we assume that it is deterministic?
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 12 2005, 04:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 12 2005, 04:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Vahn Paktu, it isn't just God's omniscience that removes free will. If God creates the initial state of the universe, then assuming that the universe is deterministic, He is the one who makes all the decisions and there is no free will. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not saying that there is no free will. You have it and can do anything you want. Nothing forces you to do something or to not do something. It doesn't work like that.
The fact that God knows all takes free will into account. It doesn't matter what you choose because you did/have/will choose it and thus God knows the choice that you have freely chosen.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Apr 12 2005, 05:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Apr 12 2005, 05:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 12 2005, 05:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 12 2005, 05:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Vahn Paktu, it isn't just God's omniscience that removes free will. If God creates the initial state of the universe, then assuming that the universe is deterministic, He is the one who makes all the decisions and there is no free will. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ...
So... the universe is deterministic if we assume that it is deterministic?
Circular logic, anyone? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't know if the universe is deterministic or not. I'm assuming it for the sake of the argument.
<!--QuoteBegin-Vahn Paktu+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Vahn Paktu)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not saying that there is no free will. You have it and can do anything you want. Nothing forces you to do something or to not do something. It doesn't work like that.
The fact that God knows all takes free will into account. It doesn't matter what you choose because you did/have/will choose it and thus God knows the choice that you have freely chosen.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm the one saying that there's no free will (or if there is, then God is not omniscient or omnipotent). Let me clarify myself.
_______________
If the universe is deterministic, God is omnipotent, God is omniscient, and God created the universe, then we have no free will.
The initial state of the universe determines what will happen for the entire duration that the universe exists. God determines what that initial state is. Therefore, when God created the universe, he decided everything that would ever happen. Therefore, we don't have any free will.
_______________
Now, if we assume that the universe is not deterministic, then God can't be omniscient, because he doesn't know what is going to happen in the future. In that world, we'd have free will.
knowledge of != causality knowledge of != responsibility for
being all knowing != causing adam to sin giving man choice != causing man to choose
omniscient != destruction of "free will"
God can quite easily be omniscient and know everything that was / is / is to come... and in the same breath man can walk around and choose to do what they will, and continuing in that same breath, God is not responsible for the evil that man does. Those ideas are not contradictory - they are difficult, but mutually exclusive.
God is what he is - logical, eternal, infallable, rightous, just, omniscient... We know God to be those things because of how he reveals himself - nature, mankind, Bible...
Man, on the other hand, also is what he/she is - fallable, finite, selfish, unjust... We know man to be those things because of how we are - man (or woman).
Just because we don't understand or comprehend by our understanding of logic exactly how God works does not mean that God is any less that what he is - his properties are not impingent on our understanding them (like a black hole - their properties are - our understanding has nothing to do with their reality). In fact, to assume that we can even begin to understand the nature of God presumes to much... The prophet Moses (arguably one of the Godliest people ever) was only able to see Gods back side - lest the pure magesty overwhelm and kill him.
...fizzle... fizzle... pffffffffftt - well, thats all I got for now... brain farts suck...
That's a strawman, Pepe (assuming you're talking to me).
I completely agree with this: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> knowledge of != causality knowledge of != responsibility for being all knowing != causing adam to sin <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> (being all knowing != causing adam to sin) is a true statement, but this is what I actually meant: being all knowing + being all powerful + creating the universe = causing adam to sin
I don't totally agree with this: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->omniscient != destruction of "free will"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A deterministic universe combined with an omnipotent creator that removes free will. A non-deterministic universe is incompatible with an omniscient being, because if there was a way to know everything that would happen, that would mean that the universe isn't non-deterministic.
Omniscience doesn't necessarily destroy free will and it doesn't necessarily allow free will. It's just that those are two related effects that come from a deterministic or non-deterministic universe.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just because we don't understand or comprehend by our understanding of logic exactly how God works does not mean that God is any less that what he is - his properties are not impingent on our understanding them (like a black hole - their properties are - our understanding has nothing to do with their reality). In fact, to assume that we can even begin to understand the nature of God presumes to much... The prophet Moses (arguably one of the Godliest people ever) was only able to see Gods back side - lest the pure magesty overwhelm and kill him. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Even if God isn't bound by logic (and one person earlier in the thread argued that He is), the universe that he created is bound by logic.
Also, I'm not convinced that I'm right, especially because I have no formal logical training (although I have picked up a lot), but I currently don't see any flaws to my (hypothetical) argument. I'd like to see someone refute it using logical tools, rather than referring to scripture justifying God's actions (that's a somewhat circular thing to use) or "God works in mysterious ways" arguments.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 12 2005, 04:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 12 2005, 04:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A non-deterministic universe is incompatible with an omniscient being, because if there was a way to know everything that would happen, that would mean that the universe isn't non-deterministic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> * edited out section of original post for brevity *
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, I'm not convinced that I'm right, especially because I have no formal logical training (although I have picked up a lot), but I currently don't see any flaws to my (hypothetical) argument. I'd like to see someone refute it using logical tools, rather than referring to scripture justifying God's actions (that's a somewhat circular thing to use) or "God works in mysterious ways" arguments.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A logic-driven argument against the idea that omniscience must require determinism is available at the link below (the site's name is misrepresentative, it's a set of one-sided position papers instead of a comprehensive reference, but at least they provide a bibliography of dissenting opinions):
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: <a href='http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/foreknow.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/foreknow.htm</a>
The actual source of the page is a pair of professors at the University of Tenessee at Martin, a secular (I think) university. The quality of the explanation is mediocre IMO, but it does provide an argument against the first quote above without scripture or an appeal to ignorance. It attempts to prove that there is a logical fallacy implicitly made in the conclusion.
I don't feel like arguing it but let me just add my vote in here:
I don't believe in all knowing and all powerful omniscience. Personally, I believe that <i>only</i> God/Allah/Nature is all knowing and all powerful and that's because to me god is an interchangeable synonym with the word existence. God is everything and everything is God. Becoming one with the universe is the same as becoming one with God. Am I making sense here? Free will == choice. Not a whole lot to it. I don't really know if it's fair to make a conditional comparing omniscience and free will because they are not connected, or even really opposites. I believe in choice and not in omniscience I guess.
I believe Free Will could be determined scientificially by creating two universes with identical layouts of matter and energy. The most important aspect is that both these universes have a person in it, made of identical material, forced to make decisions based on their environment. If, at any point, there are variations between these universes because of a person's decision, it must be caused by Free Will.
Since we can't test this out, the rest is just my theory. My theory is that Free Will requires a person's brain somehow communicate with an external force outside the universe. Most religions tend to call this a soul and assume that morality is derived from this force. If I were to design such a force to interact with a human brain, I would use energy manipulation, specifically through electro-magnetic and temperature changes.
So, how could God be all-knowing, but at the same time there be Free Will? I guess you could make the definition of all-knowing to just apply to the Universe, and not to things outside of it. Knowing what will happen with matter and energy are not hard to do, if you have the means to measure all of it. Still, God may have seemed to be all-knowing and all-powerful to the people of the time, but that doesn't mean He was.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bogglesteinsky+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bogglesteinsky)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To put it bluntly (and here you guys are gonna get really annoyed) it just doesn't. That's where faith comes in. Sorry guys. When Joseph was sent to Egypt by his brothers, after he meets them again, he explains to them: "you intended to harm me, but God intended if for good" Notice that it wasn't Joseph's brothers taking the initiative, with God interrupting to change the course of events (humans do not have complete free will), nor was it that the brother's ill treatment of joseph replaced God's plan of getting him to Egypt (God does not have complete control). "You intended ... but God intended..." shows that the brothers were completely responsible for their actions, yet God was actively and intentionally at work at every point. Every single evil action happens inside God's control, it doesn't happen without him knowing about it, yet he is not responsible for it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now that's something I can't argue with, faith. I can accept that you have faith in something even though you can't prove it as long as you can accept that everything we have said is completely rational, makes complete sense, that there is absolutely no way you can argue against it or disagree with us but you still believe we are wrong. That is true faith. It's not annoying, it is actually quite admirable to understand that the things you are saying don't make sense and yet still believe them because it's what you're supposed to think... as long as it's god that wants you to think that way anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bogglesteinsky+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bogglesteinsky)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Why couldn't God just create us with free will, but unable to do evil?"
Another simple one. No-one can do that, not even God. A person who is free and yet cannot choose wrongly is a person who is both free and not free. Not even God could create such a "round square". Free will isn't free will without choice. No matter how omnipotent you are, you cannot carry out two mutually exclusive alternatives not because your power hits an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I totally agree with you. All he could do is redefine the word square to include the property 'roundness' which is just cheap as that isn't what we meant. I would just like to point out that there are pleny of people who would argue that god <i>could</i> make a round square though. I also think that a omniscient god's and freewill cannot exist together, that it's another example of a round square.
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It may be nonsense to us, but we aren't God. God created the rules. He shouldn't be constrained by logic any more than He is by science.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So he could be omnipresent and not exist at the same time? I don't think so somehow. Faith is, as I said before, very admirable. So basically you are admitting that the idea of god is completely irrational and unreasonable? That no logical person could ever believe in him? Interesting.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionaired+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionaired)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In the example above, imagine there is no environmental factor that forces A to shoot B. There is no chemical influence in A's mind that alters his judgement. There is no predisposition to either course of action for A. Then, it would be free will: a choice made, by it's very definition, free from any other deterministic factors. A could stoicly, lucidly pull the trigger, or he could put the gun down and buy B a happy meal, it doesn't matter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So A has never existed until the moment when there is a gun in his hand? Sorry but while I enjoy a hypothetical question as much as the next guy when you are discussing free will you can't discard, when confronted with two choices, the reasons a person would base their decision on. Even a coin tossed in the air has various different variables which will affect the outcome. If I could toss two coins in exactly the same way under exactly the same conditions then it would always land on the same side. Always. Ok so someone says 'what about the uncertainty principle?'. Yeah so that applies to me, I will never be able to know what was going to happen because I'm not omniscient but unfortunately for you guys a god can. That means that he could make that coin land on heads every time forever.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionaired+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionaired)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Christianity claims that ultimately, our surroundings do not matter when responding to this fundamental question. Since God is a personal being, and since we are personal beings, the choice we must make is a purely personal one between us and God, with no other factors. We can hate God because of something or other that happened to us early in life, but these are secondary arguments made after the thought to justify our actions to ourselves, much like Christian testimonies and the like.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That sounds like god has already decided that person A will love god and so be saved and person B will hate god and go to hell. That sounds like neither A or B have any choice in the matter to me. If you love or hate god for no reason at all then what is the point? If your salvation really is a matter of the hypothetical toss of the coin then how does anything you do really matter. So when exactly does this choice get made? When is our coin flipped?
<!--QuoteBegin-Bogglesteinsky+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bogglesteinsky)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Is it just me, or are we arguing round in circles? Whether they would eventually eat the apple is irrelevant. At every step along the way, they had the choice to not eat the apple. Therefore, when they did eat the apple, they chose to eat it. Yes, God knew they would eat the apple. But, being a logical being, bound by logic, he had to put it there to give them the choice not to.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok I really don't want to wander down this 'Adam and Eve' route that this thread has taken but... if you put a ball at the top of a slope it will roll down. If you put curious people with no knowledge of consquence, with no knowledge of sin (and therefore what is right and wrong or whether they should obey a command), with a whole load of apples that have been pointed out as 'special' and an infinite amount of time then... well what do you see happening? I'm sure god knew that would happen. That means he only commanded them not to because then he could tell them they broke the command and can be cast out. You can't break the law unless the law has been made. Oh and earlier you said that children are treated differently. How exactly were Adam and Eve different from children? Answer: They knew even less about right and wrong than a child did (oh, and pubic hair, so what). Are you saying that the law is more reasonable than god is?
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But what if you were faced with two identical choices? Like choosing between two superficially identical tennis balls to play a game with? It's a free choice, but no one could predict that in advance what someone would always choose.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Have you ever seen <a href='http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/M/mindcontrol/video/' target='_blank'>Derren Brown</a>. Of course he is trying to trick us and he isn't omniscient of course (<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->) but with two identical tennis balls we will chose based on whether we are right or left handed, on whether we are trying to be logical or intuitive etc. Lots of factors that we probably can't even guess at and can only get a feel for from subconscious clues and even then it's unlikely that we'll guess it. It is predictable? Yes, if you know enough about that person. So if you are omniscient then? Yes, everything.
Finally, lets get away from the quotes. My thoughts? Obviously I don't believe in free will. I don't actually believe in it even though I don't believe that a god exists, I think we are all dominos falling over from forces beyond anyones control. Is free will useful though? Yes. Otherwise how could you punish someone that commits a crime? None of us have final responsibility for our actions but because that would just make society collapse we have to pretend it exists. In the same way, DNA has a massive impact on your future tendencies in life but because we can't put people in jail before they commit a crime and we certainly can't abort babies because we know they have a chance of being criminal we just have to pretend it doesn't. Would you kill baby Hitler? What if you knew he had the potential to be a Hitler? What if you knew that a large proportion of society has that same potential?
Sorry for the long post, I wasn't able to join in earlier.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cagey+Apr 12 2005, 08:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cagey @ Apr 12 2005, 08:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 12 2005, 04:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 12 2005, 04:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A non-deterministic universe is incompatible with an omniscient being, because if there was a way to know everything that would happen, that would mean that the universe isn't non-deterministic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> * edited out section of original post for brevity *
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, I'm not convinced that I'm right, especially because I have no formal logical training (although I have picked up a lot), but I currently don't see any flaws to my (hypothetical) argument. I'd like to see someone refute it using logical tools, rather than referring to scripture justifying God's actions (that's a somewhat circular thing to use) or "God works in mysterious ways" arguments.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A logic-driven argument against the idea that omniscience must require determinism is available at the link below (the site's name is misrepresentative, it's a set of one-sided position papers instead of a comprehensive reference, but at least they provide a bibliography of dissenting opinions):
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: <a href='http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/foreknow.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/foreknow.htm</a>
The actual source of the page is a pair of professors at the University of Tenessee at Martin, a secular (I think) university. The quality of the explanation is mediocre IMO, but it does provide an argument against the first quote above without scripture or an appeal to ignorance. It attempts to prove that there is a logical fallacy implicitly made in the conclusion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What I got from that is this statement:
"God’s knowledge of future free choices does not necessarily determine them."
I guess it depends on what the definition of omniscience is. If omniscience is knowing everything that could happen, then I'm wrong and an omniscient being could exist in a non-deterministic universe. If omniscience is knowing exactly what will happen (i.e. what choices people will make), then omniscience is only possible in a deterministic universe. I think it's obvious that Christians believe in an non-deterministic universe with an omniscience God suited to that universe, because in a deterministic universe, free will means nothing and the whole sin/punishment/redemption system is a farce purely for the amusement of God (although predestination is a Christian idea, so there are exceptions, no matter how strange it seems to me).
I now also think that an omniscient, omnipotent God is completely impossible in a deterministic universe, because God wouldn't be God if his actions were determined from the beginning, and if his actions aren't determined from the beginning, then by definition, the universe is non-deterministic. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that if a certain God exists, then the universe is non-deterministic.
That leads me to believe that my definition of omniscience is wrong, because an omniscient God (by my definition) implies a deterministic universe, but He would be able to change His actions because of foreknowledge and that would mean that the universe wouldn't be deterministic.
Therefore, my argument that God set this whole thing up from the beginning (and that we have no free will) is wrong. However, my argument that God had to have known that Adam and Eve would eat the apple, is still valid. He had complete knowledge of them when he created them (or at the very least, immediately after he created them and certainly before he warned them not to eat the apple) and he would have known that they would eat the apple, since they had immortality and non-zero curiosity. Therefore, if God exists, then he knew that we would Fall.
I think that the most obvious thing that came from this is the fact that my lack of formal logical training is making things very complicated and unnecessarily difficult. I do want to thank you Cagey, for giving me this fascinating excercise.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 12 2005, 09:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 12 2005, 09:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I do want to thank you Cagey, for giving me this fascinating excercise. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sure -- like I said in the other thread, I do like genuine examination of both religious and philosophical issues both within Christianity and applied to other belief systems; I just usually don't find fertile ground for a logical discussion in the limited bandwidth a forum provides.
there are MANY futures... due to the theory of the multiverse, thus god would have to be MANY people (infinet number as there is an infinet number of multiverse) and thus would not be god, but God(s), which would mean most of the Christian faith is defunct...
I hate the bible... it's been translated SO many times, re-written thru SO many different languages... nobody knows WHAT the hell it's supposed to say, but it sure ain't what it says now...
Surely an omniscient being knows everything. That to me would imply both knowing everything that 'could happen' and knowing everything that will happen.
As far as I could gather from the quick once over read I gave it, its yet another excercise in semantics. Something philosophers are so good at and yet it rarely makes a difference.
Of course if I was either definition then I could consider myself omniscient but 'god' is surely limitless and only knowing what could happen is limiting.
I know this coin could land heads, tails or on its end. It has only got 3 faces. If you want to make it more complex I could also add the direction it faces or include improbably events like it not landing at all, it getting carried off by aliens or turning in to a giraffe. I could spend my entire time documenting every possible combination of events (it turning into a giraffe with asthma, a talking giraffe, a giraffe with a fear of hights etc) and not hit the end. However I could conceivably, given enough time, list every possible thing that could happen in that circumstance.
I still wouldn't know what was going to happen though and so my knowledge would be limited.
All those that wish to agree that God is limited in his knowledge is fine, I can accept that 'omniscience' and free will could then exist.
All the others can admit that they believe in something which is completely nonsensical and ludicrous but that's the point of faith. Well cool, I can accept that too.
All those that think true limitless omniscience and freewill aren't mutually exclusive are welcome to continue as long as they can sufficiently prove how. Convince me and I'll preach your words to everyone I meet, otherwise admit that you are wrong and kindly fall into one of the previous two categories please.
[Edit=to avoid double posting] Bullethead: I see no reason why an omniscient and omnipresent god couldn't operate in more than one universe. Surely a limitless being that can operate anywhere isn't stopped by a boundry as petty as the ends of the universe. [/Edit]
Thats not a problem, that is the whole point. If it hasn't happened yet then how come 'god' knows the future?
We are climbing a never ending hill and we can never quite see over the top at the otherside, an omniscient being could see what was on the other side and so see where we will be walking. To do that means that the path has already been laid otherwise it can't be seen. If our path is already set then how can we change it?
In other words while you might SOMEHOW end up doing something completely unpredictable, a 'god' would have known what you were going to do before you did it and you would be incapable of doing anything else.
You mean that the whole 'everytime there is a possibility of something happening they both happen and the universe branches off' kind of thing?
Sorry but that doesn't solve the problem to be honest. That just means that everyone can tell the future just by picking a random probability as it is going to happen in some... reality? Universe? Whatever you want to call it. Either way it screws up free will because it makes a mockery of the idea of 'making a decision'. You can't make a decision if you pick one way and another way at the same time. That just means that there is no free will again.
Or you are saying that 'god' can't keep track of everything that is happening which means that there he isn't omniscient. Again it is one or the other. 3am isn't too late at all, it's 8:17am here, I've been up all night and I'm out in an hour or so all day. Sleep is for wimps.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It may be nonsense to us, but we aren't God. God created the rules. He shouldn't be constrained by logic any more than He is by science.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So he could be omnipresent and not exist at the same time? I don't think so somehow. Faith is, as I said before, very admirable. So basically you are admitting that the idea of god is completely irrational and unreasonable? That no logical person could ever believe in him? Interesting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> God created the whole universe, right? He didn't just create planets and stars; presumably, He also chose the rules. Assuming He defined them - before that point, there was no logic per se. He decided what logic would <i>be</i>. So His decision probably wouldn't be constrained by logic.
This is assuming the omnipotent, omniscient and loving God. It doesn't affect a God who justs winds up the universe and lets it go (and leaves humanity to find its own way by and large).
For the record, I'm agnostic. I don't believe in God or the bible. I have nothing against those who do; my personal feelings are that even if a creator-god existed, he would be a being so far above our ken that it would be futile to try and understand it. (No hard feelings toward Ken.)
While he can define the laws of physics and create universes I'm not sure if logic is something you can create, it's more of a by product. He could create an object of which one face is a triangle, that triangle would automatically have every rule about triangles we know appear. You can't have a triangle without them. In the same way he can get all biblical and make pairs of animals. If you take two african elephants that he's made and stand them next to two indian elephants then you now have a line of four pachyderms. There can't be any less or any more without changing the number of elephants. 2+2=4 by definition. That he created the world they are standing on, the gravity that stops them floating off or the mind that just counted them is neither here nor there. He can play around with the laws of physics so that the tree that falls in the words really doesn't make a sound but he couldn't change the amount of trees without knocking a few more over. Somethings are simply true by definition, he might create a universe that triangles can exist in but the idea of a triangle is there anyway. When nothing else existed except god, when there was only one thing ever the number two was still there even if you couldn't count two things <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> (I like that idea).
The only real thing you can say to disagree is 'well he moves in mysterious ways and we cannot understand him so you are wrong'. Of course I'd instantly move you into the 'I have faith in nonsense' category. Of course that could be true and, whether its nonsense or not, he might have the ability to create round circles, 4 sided triangles and make 2+2=5 but it's also so ludicrous that you can't actually take part in a debate if you believe it.
That 'you' I've been using isn't actually directed at anyone even if I first wrote this reply to you (Snidely). As you said, you're an Agnostic, possibly the most sensible thing to be... although technically an Agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves and you said you don't believe which would put you in the same camp as me, the Athiests.
An agnostic is someone who isn't convinced/doesn't really care about whether gods are real. I don't have the benefit of faith, so I'll need some sort of proof in order to believe; by default, I don't. That doesn't mean I'll never believe in gods, it's just that for now, I remain sceptical.
As for logic - you may be right. However, if the rules are different, then the by-product would be, as well. Logic is the basis for reasoning, and God would still have an influence on that. The trouble is that we're using our own rules to look at a totally different place. Of course a square and a circle are different from our frame of reference; but it wouldn't neccessarily apply to another reality.
To be honest, though, I just meant to throw this out there. As has been pointed out, we can't discuss it all that much.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> then omniscience is only possible in a deterministic universe.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why? Given that your whole argument revolves around this point, I think you had better explain yourself. God is also omnipotent yet? So he can find a way that means he knows everything that will happen and yet man still has perfect free will.
Man will always freely choose to do the thing that God has planned. Thats where faith comes in, so, since I am now resting my case, I shall proceed to let you guys argue on.
You have the book of history. Everything is contained within it, even how time is time and the universe is the universe.
Then, you whip out your magic marker and write in a couple trillion words describing how you made humans exist.
THEN, you magically imbue the characters in the book (<b>all</b> of them) with the ability to rewrite the book, and to instantly plug all the new, possible pages and chapters directly into your brain.
There. You're god now. You let the characters in the book write out their own little story into the end of time, then you read about it and imagine <b>all</b> the other possible adventures and mishaps those countless characters could've gone through but didn't. Not because you didn't write it, but because <i>THEY</i> didn't write it.
And i damn-near didn't think this up and post it here for you to read. So, in short, whenever you read a post, you ARE god, reading the book, and letting all the little forumites make their little stories about how you reading the book you're letting <i>them</i> write for <i>you</i> to read and know about, and imagine all the other possible outcomes.
[me, knowing that someone will post something saying that my point has been brought up before doesn't exactly ensure that that person will post something along those lines. s'all temporal mechanics, really... "how'd you know the ball was going to fall? you caught it..."]
<!--QuoteBegin-Bogglesteinsky+Apr 13 2005, 03:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bogglesteinsky @ Apr 13 2005, 03:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> then omniscience is only possible in a deterministic universe.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why? Given that your whole argument revolves around this point, I think you had better explain yourself. God is also omnipotent yet? So he can find a way that means he knows everything that will happen and yet man still has perfect free will.
Man will always freely choose to do the thing that God has planned. Thats where faith comes in, so, since I am now resting my case, I shall proceed to let you guys argue on. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You are quoting out of context. Read my whole post.
A deterministic universe is a universe where everything has been determined from the beginning of time. Thus, by the variation of omniscience that I was talking about (I described two possible definitions of omniscience, which you should have quoted), an omniscient being would know everything that would come to pass.
I also came to the conclusion that an omniscient, omnipotent God (by using the big G, I'm referring to the Christian God) can't exist in a deterministic universe, so if Christianity is correct, the universe is non-deterministic.
Comments
All science is derived from logic, it is a fundamental component, to state otherwise suggests a poor understanding of scientific method. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Science is derived from the scientific method, which is a logical device to expand our knowledge of the universe in a truthful fashion. Some areas of knowledge (Mathematics, Logic, etc) derive directly from plain logic, itself. Other areas of knowledge (Biology, Physics, etc) derive not just from logic and th scientific method, but also from our flawed (by definition, if we had all the information, allowing us to make perfectly informed conclusions, then we wouldn't have any reason to do science int he first place) observations of the universe. Most fields of science don't contain ultimate truths about the universe, but the best truths that we can derive from the data that we have obtained, resulting in conclusions that are approximations of ultimate truths.
Sorry, I have to nitpick. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed. I didn't mean to imply that science always gives us the right answers or anythin like that, only that logic is a fundamental building block of science.
I don't belive that free will and predestination contradict each other. Using free will to chose an option, a person will always choose what they think is best for that situation. Therefore you will always choose that one thing.
Given a choice between your favorite food and your least favorite food, I could predetermine what you will pick based on your likes and dislikes. Everyone would choose their favorite food.
However if you knew that you were being "tested" on which you pick, you might choose the other but if someone knew that is what your personality is like, then they would know that you would choose the other based on the information at hand.
A person is free to choose what ever they want to, but what they choose won't be different even if that point in time was repeated.
Basically you are bound to one single path based on your own wishes and wants.
Good point. I would argue that if someone, God in this case, already has knowledge of every thing that has/is/will happen. Then it would be like a mystery film. We are stuck in the film while it is running not knowing what will happen next, however the other person, God, has already seen the film and thus knows the murderer from the start. If the film is replayed the murderer is not changed. Replace murderer with ball and there is your answer.
<a href='http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html' target='_blank'>Schrodinger's cat</a> can also be relevant to this discussion. God has collapsed the quantum state of the universe into 1 distinct possibility. Even though you are using free will to pick what ball you are using. God has observed what you will do so when the time comes for you to pick, you will pick the one that God knows you will pick.
Introducing quantum relativity into a discussion what have I done <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
...
So... the universe is deterministic if we assume that it is deterministic?
Circular logic, anyone?
I'm not saying that there is no free will. You have it and can do anything you want. Nothing forces you to do something or to not do something. It doesn't work like that.
The fact that God knows all takes free will into account. It doesn't matter what you choose because you did/have/will choose it and thus God knows the choice that you have freely chosen.
...
So... the universe is deterministic if we assume that it is deterministic?
Circular logic, anyone? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know if the universe is deterministic or not. I'm assuming it for the sake of the argument.
<!--QuoteBegin-Vahn Paktu+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Vahn Paktu)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not saying that there is no free will. You have it and can do anything you want. Nothing forces you to do something or to not do something. It doesn't work like that.
The fact that God knows all takes free will into account. It doesn't matter what you choose because you did/have/will choose it and thus God knows the choice that you have freely chosen.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm the one saying that there's no free will (or if there is, then God is not omniscient or omnipotent). Let me clarify myself.
_______________
If the universe is deterministic, God is omnipotent, God is omniscient, and God created the universe, then we have no free will.
The initial state of the universe determines what will happen for the entire duration that the universe exists. God determines what that initial state is. Therefore, when God created the universe, he decided everything that would ever happen. Therefore, we don't have any free will.
_______________
Now, if we assume that the universe is not deterministic, then God can't be omniscient, because he doesn't know what is going to happen in the future. In that world, we'd have free will.
knowledge of != responsibility for
being all knowing != causing adam to sin
giving man choice != causing man to choose
omniscient != destruction of "free will"
God can quite easily be omniscient and know everything that was / is / is to come... and in the same breath man can walk around and choose to do what they will, and continuing in that same breath, God is not responsible for the evil that man does. Those ideas are not contradictory - they are difficult, but mutually exclusive.
God is what he is - logical, eternal, infallable, rightous, just, omniscient... We know God to be those things because of how he reveals himself - nature, mankind, Bible...
Man, on the other hand, also is what he/she is - fallable, finite, selfish, unjust... We know man to be those things because of how we are - man (or woman).
Just because we don't understand or comprehend by our understanding of logic exactly how God works does not mean that God is any less that what he is - his properties are not impingent on our understanding them (like a black hole - their properties are - our understanding has nothing to do with their reality). In fact, to assume that we can even begin to understand the nature of God presumes to much... The prophet Moses (arguably one of the Godliest people ever) was only able to see Gods back side - lest the pure magesty overwhelm and kill him.
...fizzle... fizzle... pffffffffftt - well, thats all I got for now... brain farts suck...
I completely agree with this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> knowledge of != causality
knowledge of != responsibility for
being all knowing != causing adam to sin
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(being all knowing != causing adam to sin) is a true statement, but this is what I actually meant:
being all knowing + being all powerful + creating the universe = causing adam to sin
I don't totally agree with this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->omniscient != destruction of "free will"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A deterministic universe combined with an omnipotent creator that removes free will.
A non-deterministic universe is incompatible with an omniscient being, because if there was a way to know everything that would happen, that would mean that the universe isn't non-deterministic.
Omniscience doesn't necessarily destroy free will and it doesn't necessarily allow free will. It's just that those are two related effects that come from a deterministic or non-deterministic universe.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just because we don't understand or comprehend by our understanding of logic exactly how God works does not mean that God is any less that what he is - his properties are not impingent on our understanding them (like a black hole - their properties are - our understanding has nothing to do with their reality). In fact, to assume that we can even begin to understand the nature of God presumes to much... The prophet Moses (arguably one of the Godliest people ever) was only able to see Gods back side - lest the pure magesty overwhelm and kill him. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even if God isn't bound by logic (and one person earlier in the thread argued that He is), the universe that he created is bound by logic.
Also, I'm not convinced that I'm right, especially because I have no formal logical training (although I have picked up a lot), but I currently don't see any flaws to my (hypothetical) argument. I'd like to see someone refute it using logical tools, rather than referring to scripture justifying God's actions (that's a somewhat circular thing to use) or "God works in mysterious ways" arguments.
* edited out section of original post for brevity *
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, I'm not convinced that I'm right, especially because I have no formal logical training (although I have picked up a lot), but I currently don't see any flaws to my (hypothetical) argument. I'd like to see someone refute it using logical tools, rather than referring to scripture justifying God's actions (that's a somewhat circular thing to use) or "God works in mysterious ways" arguments.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A logic-driven argument against the idea that omniscience must require determinism is available at the link below (the site's name is misrepresentative, it's a set of one-sided position papers instead of a comprehensive reference, but at least they provide a bibliography of dissenting opinions):
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: <a href='http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/foreknow.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/foreknow.htm</a>
The actual source of the page is a pair of professors at the University of Tenessee at Martin, a secular (I think) university. The quality of the explanation is mediocre IMO, but it does provide an argument against the first quote above without scripture or an appeal to ignorance. It attempts to prove that there is a logical fallacy implicitly made in the conclusion.
I don't believe in all knowing and all powerful omniscience. Personally, I believe that <i>only</i> God/Allah/Nature is all knowing and all powerful and that's because to me god is an interchangeable synonym with the word existence. God is everything and everything is God. Becoming one with the universe is the same as becoming one with God. Am I making sense here? Free will == choice. Not a whole lot to it. I don't really know if it's fair to make a conditional comparing omniscience and free will because they are not connected, or even really opposites. I believe in choice and not in omniscience I guess.
Since we can't test this out, the rest is just my theory. My theory is that Free Will requires a person's brain somehow communicate with an external force outside the universe. Most religions tend to call this a soul and assume that morality is derived from this force. If I were to design such a force to interact with a human brain, I would use energy manipulation, specifically through electro-magnetic and temperature changes.
So, how could God be all-knowing, but at the same time there be Free Will? I guess you could make the definition of all-knowing to just apply to the Universe, and not to things outside of it. Knowing what will happen with matter and energy are not hard to do, if you have the means to measure all of it. Still, God may have seemed to be all-knowing and all-powerful to the people of the time, but that doesn't mean He was.
Now that's something I can't argue with, faith. I can accept that you have faith in something even though you can't prove it as long as you can accept that everything we have said is completely rational, makes complete sense, that there is absolutely no way you can argue against it or disagree with us but you still believe we are wrong. That is true faith. It's not annoying, it is actually quite admirable to understand that the things you are saying don't make sense and yet still believe them because it's what you're supposed to think... as long as it's god that wants you to think that way anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bogglesteinsky+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bogglesteinsky)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Why couldn't God just create us with free will, but unable to do evil?"
Another simple one. No-one can do that, not even God. A person who is free and yet cannot choose wrongly is a person who is both free and not free. Not even God could create such a "round square". Free will isn't free will without choice. No matter how omnipotent you are, you cannot carry out two mutually exclusive alternatives not because your power hits an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I totally agree with you. All he could do is redefine the word square to include the property 'roundness' which is just cheap as that isn't what we meant. I would just like to point out that there are pleny of people who would argue that god <i>could</i> make a round square though. I also think that a omniscient god's and freewill cannot exist together, that it's another example of a round square.
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It may be nonsense to us, but we aren't God. God created the rules. He shouldn't be constrained by logic any more than He is by science.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So he could be omnipresent and not exist at the same time? I don't think so somehow. Faith is, as I said before, very admirable. So basically you are admitting that the idea of god is completely irrational and unreasonable? That no logical person could ever believe in him? Interesting.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionaired+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionaired)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
In the example above, imagine there is no environmental factor that forces A to shoot B. There is no chemical influence in A's mind that alters his judgement. There is no predisposition to either course of action for A. Then, it would be free will: a choice made, by it's very definition, free from any other deterministic factors. A could stoicly, lucidly pull the trigger, or he could put the gun down and buy B a happy meal, it doesn't matter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So A has never existed until the moment when there is a gun in his hand? Sorry but while I enjoy a hypothetical question as much as the next guy when you are discussing free will you can't discard, when confronted with two choices, the reasons a person would base their decision on. Even a coin tossed in the air has various different variables which will affect the outcome. If I could toss two coins in exactly the same way under exactly the same conditions then it would always land on the same side. Always. Ok so someone says 'what about the uncertainty principle?'. Yeah so that applies to me, I will never be able to know what was going to happen because I'm not omniscient but unfortunately for you guys a god can. That means that he could make that coin land on heads every time forever.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionaired+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionaired)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Christianity claims that ultimately, our surroundings do not matter when responding to this fundamental question. Since God is a personal being, and since we are personal beings, the choice we must make is a purely personal one between us and God, with no other factors. We can hate God because of something or other that happened to us early in life, but these are secondary arguments made after the thought to justify our actions to ourselves, much like Christian testimonies and the like.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That sounds like god has already decided that person A will love god and so be saved and person B will hate god and go to hell. That sounds like neither A or B have any choice in the matter to me. If you love or hate god for no reason at all then what is the point? If your salvation really is a matter of the hypothetical toss of the coin then how does anything you do really matter. So when exactly does this choice get made? When is our coin flipped?
<!--QuoteBegin-Bogglesteinsky+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bogglesteinsky)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Is it just me, or are we arguing round in circles? Whether they would eventually eat the apple is irrelevant. At every step along the way, they had the choice to not eat the apple. Therefore, when they did eat the apple, they chose to eat it. Yes, God knew they would eat the apple. But, being a logical being, bound by logic, he had to put it there to give them the choice not to.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok I really don't want to wander down this 'Adam and Eve' route that this thread has taken but... if you put a ball at the top of a slope it will roll down. If you put curious people with no knowledge of consquence, with no knowledge of sin (and therefore what is right and wrong or whether they should obey a command), with a whole load of apples that have been pointed out as 'special' and an infinite amount of time then... well what do you see happening? I'm sure god knew that would happen. That means he only commanded them not to because then he could tell them they broke the command and can be cast out. You can't break the law unless the law has been made.
Oh and earlier you said that children are treated differently. How exactly were Adam and Eve different from children? Answer: They knew even less about right and wrong than a child did (oh, and pubic hair, so what). Are you saying that the law is more reasonable than god is?
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But what if you were faced with two identical choices? Like choosing between two superficially identical tennis balls to play a game with? It's a free choice, but no one could predict that in advance what someone would always choose.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Have you ever seen <a href='http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/M/mindcontrol/video/' target='_blank'>Derren Brown</a>. Of course he is trying to trick us and he isn't omniscient of course (<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->) but with two identical tennis balls we will chose based on whether we are right or left handed, on whether we are trying to be logical or intuitive etc. Lots of factors that we probably can't even guess at and can only get a feel for from subconscious clues and even then it's unlikely that we'll guess it. It is predictable? Yes, if you know enough about that person. So if you are omniscient then? Yes, everything.
Finally, lets get away from the quotes. My thoughts? Obviously I don't believe in free will. I don't actually believe in it even though I don't believe that a god exists, I think we are all dominos falling over from forces beyond anyones control. Is free will useful though? Yes. Otherwise how could you punish someone that commits a crime? None of us have final responsibility for our actions but because that would just make society collapse we have to pretend it exists. In the same way, DNA has a massive impact on your future tendencies in life but because we can't put people in jail before they commit a crime and we certainly can't abort babies because we know they have a chance of being criminal we just have to pretend it doesn't. Would you kill baby Hitler? What if you knew he had the potential to be a Hitler? What if you knew that a large proportion of society has that same potential?
Sorry for the long post, I wasn't able to join in earlier.
* edited out section of original post for brevity *
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, I'm not convinced that I'm right, especially because I have no formal logical training (although I have picked up a lot), but I currently don't see any flaws to my (hypothetical) argument. I'd like to see someone refute it using logical tools, rather than referring to scripture justifying God's actions (that's a somewhat circular thing to use) or "God works in mysterious ways" arguments.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A logic-driven argument against the idea that omniscience must require determinism is available at the link below (the site's name is misrepresentative, it's a set of one-sided position papers instead of a comprehensive reference, but at least they provide a bibliography of dissenting opinions):
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: <a href='http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/foreknow.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/foreknow.htm</a>
The actual source of the page is a pair of professors at the University of Tenessee at Martin, a secular (I think) university. The quality of the explanation is mediocre IMO, but it does provide an argument against the first quote above without scripture or an appeal to ignorance. It attempts to prove that there is a logical fallacy implicitly made in the conclusion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I got from that is this statement:
"God’s knowledge of future free choices does not necessarily determine them."
I guess it depends on what the definition of omniscience is. If omniscience is knowing everything that could happen, then I'm wrong and an omniscient being could exist in a non-deterministic universe. If omniscience is knowing exactly what will happen (i.e. what choices people will make), then omniscience is only possible in a deterministic universe. I think it's obvious that Christians believe in an non-deterministic universe with an omniscience God suited to that universe, because in a deterministic universe, free will means nothing and the whole sin/punishment/redemption system is a farce purely for the amusement of God (although predestination is a Christian idea, so there are exceptions, no matter how strange it seems to me).
I now also think that an omniscient, omnipotent God is completely impossible in a deterministic universe, because God wouldn't be God if his actions were determined from the beginning, and if his actions aren't determined from the beginning, then by definition, the universe is non-deterministic. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that if a certain God exists, then the universe is non-deterministic.
That leads me to believe that my definition of omniscience is wrong, because an omniscient God (by my definition) implies a deterministic universe, but He would be able to change His actions because of foreknowledge and that would mean that the universe wouldn't be deterministic.
Therefore, my argument that God set this whole thing up from the beginning (and that we have no free will) is wrong. However, my argument that God had to have known that Adam and Eve would eat the apple, is still valid. He had complete knowledge of them when he created them (or at the very least, immediately after he created them and certainly before he warned them not to eat the apple) and he would have known that they would eat the apple, since they had immortality and non-zero curiosity. Therefore, if God exists, then he knew that we would Fall.
I think that the most obvious thing that came from this is the fact that my lack of formal logical training is making things very complicated and unnecessarily difficult. I do want to thank you Cagey, for giving me this fascinating excercise.
Sure -- like I said in the other thread, I do like genuine examination of both religious and philosophical issues both within Christianity and applied to other belief systems; I just usually don't find fertile ground for a logical discussion in the limited bandwidth a forum provides.
there are MANY futures... due to the theory of the multiverse, thus god would have to be MANY people (infinet number as there is an infinet number of multiverse) and thus would not be god, but God(s), which would mean most of the Christian faith is defunct...
I hate the bible... it's been translated SO many times, re-written thru SO many different languages... nobody knows WHAT the hell it's supposed to say, but it sure ain't what it says now...
As far as I could gather from the quick once over read I gave it, its yet another excercise in semantics. Something philosophers are so good at and yet it rarely makes a difference.
Of course if I was either definition then I could consider myself omniscient but 'god' is surely limitless and only knowing what could happen is limiting.
I know this coin could land heads, tails or on its end. It has only got 3 faces. If you want to make it more complex I could also add the direction it faces or include improbably events like it not landing at all, it getting carried off by aliens or turning in to a giraffe. I could spend my entire time documenting every possible combination of events (it turning into a giraffe with asthma, a talking giraffe, a giraffe with a fear of hights etc) and not hit the end. However I could conceivably, given enough time, list every possible thing that could happen in that circumstance.
I still wouldn't know what was going to happen though and so my knowledge would be limited.
All those that wish to agree that God is limited in his knowledge is fine, I can accept that 'omniscience' and free will could then exist.
All the others can admit that they believe in something which is completely nonsensical and ludicrous but that's the point of faith. Well cool, I can accept that too.
All those that think true limitless omniscience and freewill aren't mutually exclusive are welcome to continue as long as they can sufficiently prove how. Convince me and I'll preach your words to everyone I meet, otherwise admit that you are wrong and kindly fall into one of the previous two categories please.
[Edit=to avoid double posting]
Bullethead: I see no reason why an omniscient and omnipresent god couldn't operate in more than one universe. Surely a limitless being that can operate anywhere isn't stopped by a boundry as petty as the ends of the universe.
[/Edit]
The future hasn't happened yet, thus could be a multitude of things...
I can go somewhere 100% certain I'll do one thing, and SOMEHOW wind up doing another...
We are climbing a never ending hill and we can never quite see over the top at the otherside, an omniscient being could see what was on the other side and so see where we will be walking. To do that means that the path has already been laid otherwise it can't be seen. If our path is already set then how can we change it?
In other words while you might SOMEHOW end up doing something completely unpredictable, a 'god' would have known what you were going to do before you did it and you would be incapable of doing anything else.
There is more than one future
Thus he never knows which future he's following, as each action in this universe affects the others...
Quantum Intereference is so hard to explain that at 3 am I'm not gonna farkin bother 0o
Sorry but that doesn't solve the problem to be honest. That just means that everyone can tell the future just by picking a random probability as it is going to happen in some... reality? Universe? Whatever you want to call it. Either way it screws up free will because it makes a mockery of the idea of 'making a decision'. You can't make a decision if you pick one way and another way at the same time. That just means that there is no free will again.
Or you are saying that 'god' can't keep track of everything that is happening which means that there he isn't omniscient. Again it is one or the other. 3am isn't too late at all, it's 8:17am here, I've been up all night and I'm out in an hour or so all day. Sleep is for wimps.
4*24... er... yeah...
I'm too tired to do math... 4 days... no sleep... eyes falling down... urge to urinate great
It may be nonsense to us, but we aren't God. God created the rules. He shouldn't be constrained by logic any more than He is by science.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So he could be omnipresent and not exist at the same time? I don't think so somehow. Faith is, as I said before, very admirable. So basically you are admitting that the idea of god is completely irrational and unreasonable? That no logical person could ever believe in him? Interesting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
God created the whole universe, right? He didn't just create planets and stars; presumably, He also chose the rules. Assuming He defined them - before that point, there was no logic per se. He decided what logic would <i>be</i>. So His decision probably wouldn't be constrained by logic.
This is assuming the omnipotent, omniscient and loving God. It doesn't affect a God who justs winds up the universe and lets it go (and leaves humanity to find its own way by and large).
For the record, I'm agnostic. I don't believe in God or the bible. I have nothing against those who do; my personal feelings are that even if a creator-god existed, he would be a being so far above our ken that it would be futile to try and understand it. (No hard feelings toward Ken.)
He can play around with the laws of physics so that the tree that falls in the words really doesn't make a sound but he couldn't change the amount of trees without knocking a few more over.
Somethings are simply true by definition, he might create a universe that triangles can exist in but the idea of a triangle is there anyway. When nothing else existed except god, when there was only one thing ever the number two was still there even if you couldn't count two things <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> (I like that idea).
The only real thing you can say to disagree is 'well he moves in mysterious ways and we cannot understand him so you are wrong'. Of course I'd instantly move you into the 'I have faith in nonsense' category. Of course that could be true and, whether its nonsense or not, he might have the ability to create round circles, 4 sided triangles and make 2+2=5 but it's also so ludicrous that you can't actually take part in a debate if you believe it.
That 'you' I've been using isn't actually directed at anyone even if I first wrote this reply to you (Snidely). As you said, you're an Agnostic, possibly the most sensible thing to be... although technically an Agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves and you said you don't believe which would put you in the same camp as me, the Athiests.
As for logic - you may be right. However, if the rules are different, then the by-product would be, as well. Logic is the basis for reasoning, and God would still have an influence on that. The trouble is that we're using our own rules to look at a totally different place. Of course a square and a circle are different from our frame of reference; but it wouldn't neccessarily apply to another reality.
To be honest, though, I just meant to throw this out there. As has been pointed out, we can't discuss it all that much.
Why? Given that your whole argument revolves around this point, I think you had better explain yourself. God is also omnipotent yet? So he can find a way that means he knows everything that will happen and yet man still has perfect free will.
Man will always freely choose to do the thing that God has planned. Thats where faith comes in, so, since I am now resting my case, I shall proceed to let you guys argue on.
You have the book of history. Everything is contained within it, even how time is time and the universe is the universe.
Then, you whip out your magic marker and write in a couple trillion words describing how you made humans exist.
THEN, you magically imbue the characters in the book (<b>all</b> of them) with the ability to rewrite the book, and to instantly plug all the new, possible pages and chapters directly into your brain.
There. You're god now. You let the characters in the book write out their own little story into the end of time, then you read about it and imagine <b>all</b> the other possible adventures and mishaps those countless characters could've gone through but didn't. Not because you didn't write it, but because <i>THEY</i> didn't write it.
And i damn-near didn't think this up and post it here for you to read. So, in short, whenever you read a post, you ARE god, reading the book, and letting all the little forumites make their little stories about how you reading the book you're letting <i>them</i> write for <i>you</i> to read and know about, and imagine all the other possible outcomes.
[me, knowing that someone will post something saying that my point has been brought up before doesn't exactly ensure that that person will post something along those lines.
s'all temporal mechanics, really... "how'd you know the ball was going to fall? you caught it..."]
**** Happens.
Period.
You fix what you can, and pray for someone who can to fix the rest.
Why? Given that your whole argument revolves around this point, I think you had better explain yourself. God is also omnipotent yet? So he can find a way that means he knows everything that will happen and yet man still has perfect free will.
Man will always freely choose to do the thing that God has planned. Thats where faith comes in, so, since I am now resting my case, I shall proceed to let you guys argue on. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are quoting out of context. Read my whole post.
A deterministic universe is a universe where everything has been determined from the beginning of time. Thus, by the variation of omniscience that I was talking about (I described two possible definitions of omniscience, which you should have quoted), an omniscient being would know everything that would come to pass.
I also came to the conclusion that an omniscient, omnipotent God (by using the big G, I'm referring to the Christian God) can't exist in a deterministic universe, so if Christianity is correct, the universe is non-deterministic.