Free will and omniscience

[Beelzebuddy]

From a material perspective, "free will" is a meaningless statement. Your actions are deterministic, decreed by the thin soup of electrical activity in your noggin.

So any discussion of free will, whatever else it means, has to assume a theological standpoint. From the thread so far, I assume we're going for an Abrahamic angle, right? In that case I'd like to proffer the meaning of free will as the ability to go against God's Plan. Can you successfully act to spite God, or has that been Planned for too?

Rather than talk about angels and pinheads, let's look at what the Bible says, hm?

Originally Posted by Romans 8:29-30

8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Originally Posted by Ephesians 1:4-5

1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Originally Posted by 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I think the above is pretty clear: no, God has already stacked the deck. If you're meant to be saved, God will call you personally, if you're doomed to be damned, God himself inspired your disbelief.

Now, you can get back to asking whether a mute oracle, who knows all but tells nothing, affects free will. It just isn't the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, just wanted to make that clear.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Yes it is.

You can't pick Y. It's impossible for you to do so. Your hands are tied.

No, they're not. I'm looking down at my hands. They're not tied, and all of X, Y, and Z are available for my selection.

The fact that I will choose to pick X has no effect on my capacity to choose to pick Y or Z, just as the fact that I will choose to eat turkey today has no effect on my capacity to eat chicken or pork.

[mutile]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I kind of agree with AvalonXQ here - up to a point. An observer of a choice does not affect that choice, even if the observer knows what choice will be made.

However, the Christian God is not a mere observer. Generally, whatever God wills comes to pass. God determines events.

Pharaoh did not use free will when he refused to let the Israelites free. God had hardened his heart. Does God make some things happen and not others?

God makes everything happen, he is the creator and the first cause, he designed man in a specific way to lead to a specific outcome. Arguing that this God does not interfere is like shooting someone and blaming the bullet.

[HansMustermann]

Yes, and theoretically my car could take any turn, but nevertheless, if it can't actually decide to take me to the doctor instead of to work, then it has no free will on the matter. Or a Roomba certainly has the capability to clean another house too, but if there is no way for it to actually decide to go there, and be able to go there, then it has no free will on the matter,

And generally if I can predict that the Roomba will be in place X at time Y, then there is PREDESTINATION. It doesn't matter how much you can handwave around whether it still has free will or not. Then the more important point, the whole thing that the "free will" was supposed to counter, is just that: PREDESTINATION.

Especially when you throw omniscience in. If I know that my Roomba at 10:45 PM will trip a light sensor, which will cause a door to swing open, and the door will snag a cable and cause a fire -- not just that it MIGHT do that, but that predictably, executing the program with the data and room configuration it has in its memory, it WILL do that -- I am responsible if I let it happen. Then I don't even have the excuse that I just wanted to see if it would really do that, because I know it will do that.

There is a reason why something being obvious or fairly predictable by a person of average intellect is brought up in court cases. You can be off the hook at least criminally if you can't know if your supermarket roof will collapse and squash everyone inside. E.g., because it only happened in an earthquake you couldn't possibly predict. But if you knew it will collapse within an hour (e.g., because the roof already started to crack and things are going worse by the minute) and you didn't get the people out, you ARE responsible.

That is the problem that "free will" was supposed to work around. If people have the free will to do something unpredictable, and which God can't reliably predict, then he's off the hook about a lot of stuff. But if you sneak predestination right in the back door, then, again: "free will" becomes fully irrelevant. What is important then is that everything is predestined to happen, and God knows exactly what will happen and when. Then "free will" just isn't an excuse, or even relevant, any more.

[Good Lt]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

No, they're not. I'm looking down at my hands. They're not tied, and all of X, Y, and Z are available for my selection

No, they aren't.

The only choice you are able to make is the one that's been selected for you as part of the plan.

The plan that began in the beginning of time that you have no power to change or to alter.

Your choice has been made already. It's been assigned to you.

[AdMan]

If an omniscient god created the universe, he knew exactly what would happen with everything in the universe when he did. He knew and knows every choice that every sentient being would and will make until the end of time--it's as if everything is written in stone and cannot be changed.

There is simply no way to reconcile free will with that idea--with an omniscient god, free will is only an illusion.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

When it comes to what Avalon is saying in this thread's OP, I would think a good analogy in support of his version of free will would be that if you could somehow go back in time before someone chooses something, and you know what they are choosing, they would still be freely choosing.

.

When you have to posit impossible conditions you might want to rethink your argument.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Or... the blind guy had every choice, and God knew he would end up there anyway. Just like I would if I came from the future.

When time travel becomes possible your argument would have merit.

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by tsig

When you have to posit impossible conditions you might want to rethink your argument.

Yeah, playing devil's advocate is for wussies. What was I thinking, trying to accurately portray an argument I disagree with?

[Aridas]

So, since you've been active, but not replied to me, AvalonXQ, I'm mildly wondering if you're intentionally or not intentionally ignoring me.

So, I'm going to mostly requote my first post and see if you actually reply, this time.

Originally Posted by Aridas

Either way, AvalonXQ is fighting a straw man. It's not that knowledge of events has any effect on Free Will, it's the nature of reality that won't allow them to co-exist. Or, to put it a different way, having Omniscience in no way takes away Free Will. In that case, Free Will simply never existed, just the illusion of it.

...

This is assuming that the Omniscience is in the same plane-equivalent. When you postulate different planes involved, things get more complex. In the end, though, interaction between a plane that allows Free Will and a plane that allows something that can be called Omniscience will end up nullifying one or the other.

...

So, the crux of the matter, then, before any argument is presented... Do you consider a physical reality that there was only one path that you ever actually could make to be a valid constraint? What about a physical reality that allowed for more than one potential path, but that did not allow any conscious effect on the forces deciding the path?

Either way, I tend to use, as a rule of thumb for a minimum version of Free Will that is in any way reasonable to use when dealing with a moral Free Will, as is usually the actual issue at hand, "a person must be able to consciously affect which one of multiple potentially selectable options is selected, with at least some knowledge of the consequences and ability to comprehend the consequences that will result, before making a decision."

So, AvalonXQ, if you don't answer, I'm going to assume that you're not honestly interested in the topic, just in fighting some common misrepresentations of the issue and thus attempting to support your faith, despite not getting to the heart of the matter, and thus obfuscating it, and be done with it, with regards to you.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

When it comes to what Avalon is saying in this thread's OP, I would think a good analogy in support of his version of free will would be that if you could somehow go back in time before someone chooses something, and you know what they are choosing, they would still be freely choosing.

If I went back in time to kill Hitler before a point in his career for instance, all things considered if they happened the same way, he would make the same free choice.

What Avalon seems to reconcile with here is that God not only is merely aware of the future, he created everything in the first place, set up the rules, and set it off in motion himself. That makes a difference to other people, but not Avalon it seems.

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

Yeah, playing devil's advocate is for wussies. What was I thinking, trying to accurately portray an argument I disagree with?

Looks more like apologetics than devils' advocacy.

[AdMan]

I don't think this question has been raised in the thread yet, but would an omniscient god himself have free will? He already knows everything he is going to do, such as create the universe--could he then decide to do something different, like choose not to create the universe? No, because then he was not truly omniscient. But if he can't, then he doesn't have free will and he's not omnipotent.

The whole concept collapses like a house of cards.

[Good Lt]

Originally Posted by AdMan

I don't think this question has been raised in the thread yet, but would an omniscient god himself have free will? He already knows everything he is going to do, such as create the universe--could he then decide to do something different, like choose not to create the universe? No, because then he was not truly omniscient. But if he can't, then he doesn't have free will and he's not omnipotent.

The whole concept collapses like a house of cards.

I imagine their answer would be a lot like their answer to "if all things had to be created, what created the creator?"

That is, a special plea that "God need not worry about things like that because he's God and the rules don't apply to God."

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by Good Lt

I imagine their answer would be a lot like their answer to "if all things had to be created, what created the creator?"

That is, a special plea that "God need not worry about things like that because he's God and the rules don't apply to God."

I expect you're right, which is why I think trying to argue that capital-G (omniscient, omnipotent) God exists or even can exist through logic makes absolutely no sense. There always has to be special pleading.

[Pulvinar]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

No, they're not. I'm looking down at my hands. They're not tied, and all of X, Y, and Z are available for my selection.

The fact that I will choose to pick X has no effect on my capacity to choose to pick Y or Z, just as the fact that I will choose to eat turkey today has no effect on my capacity to eat chicken or pork.

Using your logic, a computer has free will. For example, it's free to choose to either jump to a new instruction or not, depending on conditions and its rules. The programmer will know just which way it will jump in any specific case. Does that make programmers demigods?

If you reexamine every statement about free will in this thread, you'll find that it's always free in the general case (where there's at least one unknown), but not free in the specific case. That's when you're not free to choose anything other than what you want at that moment.

[baron]

I don't believe in free will or god. Free will is a useful social construct but, much like god, by any objective measure it can't be said to exist.

[edge]

Originally Posted by Pulvinar

Using your logic, a computer has free will. For example, it's free to choose to either jump to a new instruction or not, depending on conditions and its rules. The programmer will know just which way it will jump in any specific case. Does that make programmers demigods?

If you reexamine every statement about free will in this thread, you'll find that it's always free in the general case (where there's at least one unknown), but not free in the specific case. That's when you're not free to choose anything other than what you want at that moment.

Good analogy Pulvinar.
Predestination ended 2000 years-ago at the moment of Jesus' sacrifice and glory and then true freewill started.
Simply said by Jesus, I have come so that all can or have the opportunity to be saved through faith. Then comes the question, "But if he wishes it to be so, why does he not make it so?
This is why God is hiding and we have to have faith to preserve freewill.
He wants your choice from your heart. Anything else would be robotic and meaningless.
If you have faith then little bits are shown to believers to keep them in the Christian faith.
"God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."-1 Timothy 2:3, 4.

[Pulvinar]

Originally Posted by edge

Good analogy Pulvinar.

Well thank you, though I have a good feeling that you didn't understand it.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by edge

Good analogy Pulvinar.
Predestination ended 2000 years-ago at the moment of Jesus' sacrifice and glory and then true freewill started.
Simply said by Jesus, I have come so that all can or have the opportunity to be saved through faith. Then comes the question, "But if he wishes it to be so, why does he not make it so?
This is why God is hiding and we have to have faith to preserve freewill.
He wants your choice from your heart. Anything else would be robotic and meaningless.
If you have faith then little bits are shown to believers to keep them in the Christian faith.
"God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."-1 Timothy 2:3, 4.

Kin ah git an ay-men!!!

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by tsig

Looks more like apologetics than devils' advocacy.

Not really. He's illustrating a valid point.

History is only fixed for us, because it's already in the past and we can't go back to take a different decision. But it doesn't mean it was a fixed outcome back then. Avalon's argument is basically a textbook case of begging the question, in that he already assumes that in a universe with free will the two would be the same. And actually they're only the same in a universe without free will.

In fact, it's an even bigger nonsense, because to work that way, you'd also need determinism and predestination at quantum level too.

E.g., let's say I go to my supervillain lair and hop into my time machine and go back to 1817 or so to buy some land in Russia. Should I worry about a bolshevik revolution a hundred years later confiscating my land?

It only works that way if the outcomes are already pre-determined in 1817. I.e., if the universe works fully deterministic and with full predestination.

And, again, not just in brain processes, but even at quantum level. To have that kind of possibility to know in 1817 if there will be a revolution in 1917, you literally need to say that quantum mechanics is bogus.

Because you know what was a factor in the low popular morale there? The prince's haemophilia. And it was also the #1 factor in the influence in court that Rasputin was getting.

But that haemophilia is due to a genetic mutation which happened in the one sperm cell that won the race and resulted in Queen Victoria. It's one single DNA break that was repaired wrong.

To have the certainty in 1817 that everything would run the same time in every possible re-run from there, you'd have to have the certitude that every single time the same atom, in the same cell that won't even exist for another year, would be knocked out in the same way. Plus a bunch of stuff based on brownian motion and potential wells -- i.e., more quantum stuff -- responsible for everything from the DNA repair not working there, to even that that cell existed in the first place.

It only takes one wavefunction collapsing differently, for history to go vastly differently from mid-19'th century onwards.

I.e., again, forget the brain and free will. To even be able to claim that anyone has that kind of knowledge, one has to flat out proclaim quantum mechanics to be fundamentally false. And, hey, let's see the data then.

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Without genuine choice, there can be no free will.

If the entity cannot be wrong, there is no choice.

Can you clarify... what exactly do you consider as "making a choice"? What do you feel must be involved for it to be regarded as being an act of free will?

To my mind making a choice is a purely deterministic process, and so whether or not an omniscient entity knows in advance what the outcome will be is irrelevant as long as there is no interference with the process itself.

Since you're clearly basing your argument on a different underlying concept of free will than mine, it'd help if you could be more explicit.

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

In order for the choice to be free and legitimate, then the foreseen future even would need to be malleable.

Why?

If you have no knowledge of what this entity has foreseen, or even if it had been foreseen, then what could possibly cause you to choose differently than you would have if it were not foreseen?

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

If there is ONE future outcome to a choice that cannot be altered then there is no real choice.

But there is only one future outcome for any choice. The choice you make will be whatever you will choose.

(The possible exception would be the many-worlds theory of physics, but in that case there would still only be one outcome in each of the worlds that split from the moment the decision is made.)

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

From a material perspective, "free will" is a meaningless statement. Your actions are deterministic, decreed by the thin soup of electrical activity in your noggin.

That would depend on your definition of free will. Since I don't believe that non-material processes exist, then for the concept of free will to have any meaning for me I must define it in the context of material processes. So for me, free will is the decision making process "decreed by the thin soup of electrical activity in your noggin".

Originally Posted by Pulvinar

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

No, they're not. I'm looking down at my hands. They're not tied, and all of X, Y, and Z are available for my selection.

The fact that I will choose to pick X has no effect on my capacity to choose to pick Y or Z, just as the fact that I will choose to eat turkey today has no effect on my capacity to eat chicken or pork.

Using your logic, a computer has free will. For example, it's free to choose to either jump to a new instruction or not, depending on conditions and its rules. The programmer will know just which way it will jump in any specific case. Does that make programmers demigods?

Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea of computers having free will. I don't mean when following the rigidly structured programs that you're obviously thinking of, but when running more sophisticated programs like a neural net simulation capable of learning and adapting it's behavior based on "environmental" stimuli. In that situation, I'd regard the computer as having free will.

(This isn't even an exotic scenario. Software of that nature already exists.)

[arthwollipot]

Telephone call for John Calvin!

[Pulvinar]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea of computers having free will. I don't mean when following the rigidly structured programs that you're obviously thinking of, but when running more sophisticated programs like a neural net simulation capable of learning and adapting it's behavior based on "environmental" stimuli. In that situation, I'd regard the computer as having free will.

(This isn't even an exotic scenario. Software of that nature already exists.)

Sorry but I don't see where the complexity of the program enters into this. No matter how the choice is being made, given a case where there's at least one free relevant variable, it's free to choose. Specify them all and it's no longer free. Complexity usually masks our ability to see what the variables and rules are (in machine or human), but they must be there if the choice is truly being made by the chooser, and not being left to chance.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Can you clarify... what exactly do you consider as "making a choice"? What do you feel must be involved for it to be regarded as being an act of free will?

To my mind making a choice is a purely deterministic process, and so whether or not an omniscient entity knows in advance what the outcome will be is irrelevant as long as there is no interference with the process itself.

Since you're clearly basing your argument on a different underlying concept of free will than mine, it'd help if you could be more explicit.



Why?

If you have no knowledge of what this entity has foreseen, or even if it had been foreseen, then what could possibly cause you to choose differently than you would have if it were not foreseen?



But there is only one future outcome for any choice. The choice you make will be whatever you will choose.

(The possible exception would be the many-worlds theory of physics, but in that case there would still only be one outcome in each of the worlds that split from the moment the decision is made.)

You don't understand omniscience. It's not about forcing you to make a choice.

[Good Lt]

Originally Posted by tsig

You don't understand omniscience. It's not about forcing you to make a choice.

What choice?

The outcome has been determined, and is unavoidable because it's part of the plan.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

That would depend on your definition of free will. Since I don't believe that non-material processes exist, then for the concept of free will to have any meaning for me I must define it in the context of material processes. So for me, free will is the decision making process "decreed by the thin soup of electrical activity in your noggin"

That's my definition too, but then my definition of God is 'a fictional character in the Bible'. However for the sake of this thread, let's pretend that the Bible is True and Yahweh exists. The exact phrase 'Free Will' does not occur in the Bible, but it is certainly implied:-

Deuteronomy 30:15-19

See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.

17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, 18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.

19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live 20 and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him.

God commands us, but He cannot force us to obey. We must choose to do so.

So what about God's supposed omniscience? The Bible is replete with references to Him knowing the future, but what does that mean? Some say He set everything in motion at the beginning, to play out like clockwork until the end of time. But Biblical evidence clearly refutes this notion. God plainly did not know that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree of knowledge, and that is just the first of many instances where Man did not do as God commanded. Therefore God is obviously not omniscient in a deterministic sense. However, that doesn't mean that He can't know everything that will happen.

I see God as a sort of 'Cosmic Chess Player'. He knows all the rules because He invented the game. He set up the pieces, He made the first move, and He has calculated the outcomes of all possible moves. But He is not the only player. Some of the pieces are us, and we make our own decisions (within the rules of the game). No matter what moves we make, God knows what the result will be. What He does not know is which move we will make each time we have a choice. God sees all possible outcomes, but how the game plays out is up to us.

That doesn't mean that God can't influence us into making certain moves. Just like in a chess game, the pieces have limited freedom of movement. We can be expected to make certain moves because they are more logical (choose good over evil) or in character (choose evil over good), and God knows what is in our hearts, so He has a pretty good idea which choices we are likely to make. Therefore when God makes a prediction, He can be fairly certain that it will come to pass (absent any critical out-of-character moves that we might make).

Another thing that's often misunderstood is the principle of omnipotence. Yes, God can do anything so long as it is within the rules. So why doesn't He always reduce pain and suffering when He can? Why does He allow evil to exist? The answer, as any good chess player knows, is that sometimes you must lose the battle in order to win the war. God does not have total control over the other players, and He knows that what look like winning moves now could be a loosing strategy in the long run.

But He's God! Why can't He just ignore the stupid rules and do what He wants? Because He made the rules. He gave us Free Will, and to circumvent that would be cheating. God is not a cheat....

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Therefore God is obviously not omniscient in a deterministic sense. However, that doesn't mean that He can't know everything that will happen.

Yes, it does tend to. 'It doesn't mean that the god can't know everything that might happen' would be the far more correct way to put that. When you say 'will' that leaves it far too open to interpretations that are invalid. I'd suggest that it tends to point more strongly to the interpretations that are invalid, no less.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

No matter what moves we make, God knows what the result will be. What He does not know is which move we will make each time we have a choice. God sees all possible outcomes, but how the game plays out is up to us.

This just makes me think MWI-like model with a non-deterministic spin. Regardless, the God you're positing, while incredibly knowledgeable, is not Omniscient, given how very much it does not and cannot know of relevance to it. I'm fine with Functional Omniscience (short version, Omniscience gained by being outside of time and being able to see everything, but not necessarily being able to fully predict everything) being posited and will accept such as Omniscience, even if it isn't necessarily "True Omniscience," because it can at least have no "I don't know" answers under some conditions. This version, though, always leaves far, far too much in the way of unknowns to ever allow it to be called Omniscience.

The interesting thing about models like this, though, is that every time that the god interacts with them, it cannot perfectly predict which of the outcomes will be changed and what path any particular reality will follow, whether there's one or many, unless, by nature, ALL possible outcomes are reality, which just goes back to a deterministic MWI.

Also of note, Omnipotence is actually rather irrelevent to whether Free Will and Omniscience can co-exist.

ETA: One of the other consequences of the model that you've proposed is that... "True Prophecy" cannot actually exist, which tends to have some devastating effects on other areas of theology.

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by tsig

You don't understand omniscience. It's not about forcing you to make a choice.

You don't understand that omniscience is irrelevant. If the omniscient entity didn't exist, how would the outcome be any less predetermined? It'd simply mean that nobody knows what the outcome is predetermined to be, not that the outcome isn't predetermined. If free will is deterministic, the outcome is always predetermined regardless of whether or not anyone knows what the outcome will be.

Unless free will is non-deterministic, but in that case prescience would be logically impossible and an otherwise omniscient entity would not be capable of knowing for certain what you are going to do. In that case, your free will also exists independently of this limited [non-prescient] omniscient entity.

So either way, the existence of omniscience is irrelevant to free will.

Originally Posted by Good Lt

The outcome has been determined, and is unavoidable because it's part of the plan.

What plan? I'm talking about an omniscient observer, not omniscient creator or puppet-master.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

You don't understand that omniscience is irrelevant.

To what you're calling Free Will, yes. Maybe, for the sake of those who either aren't quite as good at either remembering which version is being used by different people or differentiating the concepts being thrown around or for those who may just jump in without reading earlier, we should start by pointing out which version is being referred to, if there's an irrelevant objection like that?

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Yes, it does tend to. 'It doesn't mean that the god can't know everything that might happen' would be the far more correct way to put that.

Absent Free Will, God might know exactly what will happen. With Free Will, He doesn't know exactly what will happen in minute detail, but His predictive power is still practically infinite compared to Man's. When God says that something will happen, you can be sure of it. There are many Biblical examples of God making predictions, all of which have or will come true (according to the Bible, which we are assuming is True). OTOH, there are also many examples of God not offering a prediction, because Free Will is unpredictable.

Quote:

the God you're positing, while incredibly knowledgeable, is not Omniscient, given how very much it does not and cannot know of relevance to it.

Omniscience means 'infinite knowledge', but what does that mean in practice? Obviously it only applies to things that can be known. Could an omniscient being have knowledge of the mating habits of the Shivan wumpus? No, because such knowledge does not exist.

In a deterministic universe God could know everything, and He could also control everything. It would be pointless of Him to command us to do anything, since He would know what we were going to do anyway, and if necessary He could just reach into our minds and make us do whatever He wanted. But God doesn't want to control us. God gave us Free Will so that we could have the choice of rejecting evil and being good. To have that, God had to make something unknowable - our will.

Quote:

"True Omniscience,"...
"True Prophecy" cannot actually exist

No True Scotsman? These paradoxical theoretical constructs are irrelevant. What's important is the meaning of what is written in the Bible. 'True Omniscience' is neither stated nor implied anywhere in the Bible. What the Bible does say is that God knows about everything we have done, that He has plans for us, and that His prophecies are accurate. The reason God can make accurate predictions is that He knows enough to be sure that these things will happen (with intervention if necessary).

God is like a super-intelligent chess player who can see so many moves ahead that he can always beat any other player. Think you can know more than God? Not according to the Bible. That is the concept the Bible is trying to get across, not some Ivory Tower 'True Omniscience' that is infinite in scope but unimplementable in practice.

[H'ethetheth]

What I get from all this, is that free will is free in the sense that people can freely consider several alternative actions, but the outcome of that consideration is in principle predictable with absolute certainty.

Is that about right, Avalon?

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by Aridas

To what you're calling Free Will, yes. Maybe, for the sake of those who either aren't quite as good at either remembering which version is being used by different people or differentiating the concepts being thrown around or for those who may just jump in without reading earlier, we should start by pointing out which version is being referred to, if there's an irrelevant objection like that?

My first paragraph addressed all versions of free will which are deterministic in nature, and my second paragraph amended that to include all versions of free will which are not deterministic in nature.

What did I leave out?

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Absent Free Will, God might know exactly what will happen. With Free Will, He doesn't know exactly what will happen in minute detail, but His predictive power is still practically infinite compared to Man's.

Technically, you're really not addressing what I said, just using rhetoric to play up the "God is really, really smart" angle, at the expense of the "Free Will" angle.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

When God says that something will happen, you can be sure of it.

No, you can't. At best, it's merely highly likely, under the scenario that you're positing. We could go into failed Biblical prophecies, but you've stated you're playing devil's advocate.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

There are many Biblical examples of God making predictions, all of which have or will come true (according to the Bible, which we are assuming is True).

Sorry, I refuse to make that assumption. Again, though, under the scenario that you've presented, the predictions are, at best, highly likely, not certain.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

OTOH, there are also many examples of God not offering a prediction, because Free Will is unpredictable.

An infinite number of them, no less?

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Omniscience means 'infinite knowledge', but what does that mean in practice?

I freely admit that I use the "I don't know" test, to determine what I consider "True Omniscience." To sum that up roughly, if there's any question that can be formulated that will receive the meaning equivalent of "I don't know," it's not "True Omniscience." I will accept lesser forms of Omniscience, as well, provided they can pass that test under at least some circumstances, and even potentially give a little leeway under situations that may not allow for everything to be known, merely everything that happens. The model that you've presented will never pass that test, under any circumstance.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Obviously it only applies to things that can be known. Could an omniscient being have knowledge of the mating habits of the Shivan wumpus? No, because such knowledge does not exist.

Incorrect. Because the Shivan wumpus is a construct that was created by you for the sole purpose of being a non-existent creature, an omniscient being would know that the creature that you're speaking of doesn't exist, and therefore, the answer is that the mating habits of the Shivan wumpus do not exist. That such a thing does not exist is a valid answer to the question.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

In a deterministic universe God could know everything, and He could also control everything.

Omnipotence is irrelevant to the co-existence of Free Will and Omniscience, but yes, in a deterministic universe, "True Omniscience" could exist.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

It would be pointless of Him to command us to do anything,

This veers in to completely different territory where you're basically telling a god what it will or will not do. Also, irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

since He would know what we were going to do anyway, and if necessary He could just reach into our minds and make us do whatever He wanted.

Assuming Omnipotence and Omniscience, this is a possibility. Being all knowing and all powerful does not, however, proscribe any course of action that such a being must take. Therefore, first of all, your argument is invalid. Second of all, such a course of action appears in the Bible in examples like God hardening Pharaoh's heart. Third, it's still irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

But God doesn't want to control us. God gave us Free Will so that we could have the choice of rejecting evil and being good.

Irrelevant. Also unsubstantiated, at best.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

To have that, God had to make something unknowable - our will.

Irrelevant. Also unsubstantiated, at best.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

No True Scotsman?

No. I have no interest in dealing with No True Scotsman, regardless. I've already touched on what I consider "True Omniscience," much as I usually call it "Intrinsic Omniscience." "True Prophecy" would simply be prophecies that were certain to come true, not merely highly likely.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

These paradoxical theoretical constructs are irrelevant. What's important is the meaning of what is written in the Bible. 'True Omniscience' is neither stated nor implied anywhere in the Bible. What the Bible does say is that God knows about everything we have done, that He has plans for us, and that His prophecies are accurate. The reason God can make accurate predictions is that He knows enough to be sure that these things will happen (with intervention if necessary).

God is like a super-intelligent chess player who can see so many moves ahead that he can always beat any other player. Think you can know more than God? Not according to the Bible. That is the concept the Bible is trying to get across, not some Ivory Tower 'True Omniscience' that is infinite in scope but unimplementable in practice.

Irrelevant to the matter at hand. Knowing more than anyone else does not automatically mean that a being is omniscient.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

My first paragraph addressed all versions of free will which are deterministic in nature, and my second paragraph amended that to include all versions of free will which are not deterministic in nature.

What did I leave out?

That your version is

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Brian-M: Freedom from interference with the internal decision making process.

Which, again, is fairly certainly a rather different concept than the one that was almost certainly being argued against.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by edge

Good analogy Pulvinar.
Predestination ended 2000 years-ago at the moment of Jesus' sacrifice and glory and then true freewill started.
Simply said by Jesus, I have come so that all can or have the opportunity to be saved through faith. Then comes the question, "But if he wishes it to be so, why does he not make it so?
This is why God is hiding and we have to have faith to preserve freewill.
He wants your choice from your heart. Anything else would be robotic and meaningless.
If you have faith then little bits are shown to believers to keep them in the Christian faith.
"God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."-1 Timothy 2:3, 4.

So "good analogy" but you have no idea what his post meant.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

You don't understand that omniscience is irrelevant. If the omniscient entity didn't exist, how would the outcome be any less predetermined? It'd simply mean that nobody knows what the outcome is predetermined to be, not that the outcome isn't predetermined. If free will is deterministic, the outcome is always predetermined regardless of whether or not anyone knows what the outcome will be.

I agree with you that the omniscient entity's omnicience doesn't change the existence or non-existence of "free will", nor alter whether or not the outcome is pre-determined.

But it does demonstrate that the outcome is predetermined. It's at least conceivable that the outcome of a choice is not determined until that choice is made, but if there is an omniscient entity then that is ruled out. The existence of that entity hasn't changed anything, but if we know about that entity we also know that the outcome of all events in this universe are pre-determined.

If you understand the idea of "free will" to be incompatible with determinism, then it's also incompatible with omniscience.

Personally I just think the idea of free will is meaningless in this sort of context and only useful when it's understood as an imperfect model.

[dafydd]

All this fuss about an imaginary being!

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

That's exactly right.

My capacity to pick Y is not eliminated by the fact that, as it happens, I will actually pick X.



Yes.

You can pick any color you want as long as its black.

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by mutile

God makes everything happen, he is the creator and the first cause, he designed man in a specific way to lead to a specific outcome. Arguing that this God does not interfere is like shooting someone and blaming the bullet.

Its worse than that, its like getting caught shooting someone and saying "Listen that bullet could have turned into a snickers half way there, it could have whizzed around his head shaving his beard, hell, it could have stopped in mid air and started telling jokes. There were many options it had, it just had to pick ' hitting him in the skull and killing him' you can't blame me for that. "