Omniscience, Foreknowledge, & Free Will

[Retro Rob]

Not hardly, and even more, I'm not sure what it could mean to know something "some of the time."

My apologies for not being clear, Taxt, but what I mean is that one could choose utilize foreknowledge or not. In other words, I would refrain from looking into the future to predict a path...though I am able.

Generally, once a thing is known by a knower, it does not become "unknown" after that. In other words, "forgotten" things are not the same as "unknown" things

True.

Frankly, I don't understand how any of the above uliertains to my question. I just don't understand what you're saying here.

Basically, my point was that since God, Biblically speaking, can know everything, that doesn't explicitly mean we as individuals don't have free will.

For example, if you ran a foster home and all of the kids there were generally bad, you could posit that all the kids will turn out bad. However, that doesn't mean that you don't have any good kids individually, or that some kids can change.

I'm not particularly interested in the details any one story or another in the Bible,

Correct, as I understand that. I just shared the details for completeness-sake.

but rather I'm trying to discern if there can be established a sufficiently thorough or detailed understanding of god's foreknowledge in particular.

Unless this is just a mind-stimulating exercise, I don't think this is possible.

In this case, I'm not interested in whether or not Noah would "stay that way," but whether or not we can tell that god foreknew that Noah would or would not "stay that way."

I don't think we can know if God foreknew whether or not Noah would stay that way for sure, but I would say that God didn't. Let me explain using another Bible account.

With Adam and Eve, he gave them the command to not eat from the tree of knowledge under penalty of death. If he foreknew they'd do it, then that command would be meaningless, pointless, and would be awfully cruel to tell them not to do something that he had full knowledge that they would do.

I'd say that the fact that God set some guidelines out as regards that tree means that he didn't know what they would do, or there wouldn't have been a point to the guidelines. Why lay out guidelines that would serve no purpose? How could anyone justify God's punishment if he "foreknew"?

So I apply this to Noah as God giving humans individual freedom, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

 

[CycloWizard]

I think the use of the prefix "fore" is potentially problematic in and of itself. If one postulates the existence of a deity (or other omniscient being), then why would this deity be constrained by time? Indeed, proposed theories which successfully mathematically unite quantum and relativistic physics have thus far had to invoke additional dimensions which would potentially allow such beings to operate without regard for constraints imposed by time and/or space.

That aside, I don't think omniscience precludes free will. If I put food in my (wife's) cat's timed feeder and it rotates at its scheduled time, he has a choice to continue sleeping or wake up, sprint across the house, and scarf it down. I know he will do the latter but that knowledge doesn't imply he's not making that decision. Knowing the outcome of a choice doesn't imply that the choice need not be made.

The more relevant question might be whether a being who is both omnipotent and omniscient can create a being with free will. It seems that creating someone at that level while knowing exactly which choices he will make and what the outcomes of those choices will be creates a closed system devoid of free will by creating someone specifically such that (or, at least, knowing full well that) those choices will be made and what the consequences will be.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I think the use of the prefix "fore" is potentially problematic in and of itself.

This is just semantics since we don't have a vocabulary for dealing with causal events with out a temporal element, if such a thing even exists.

That aside, I don't think omniscience precludes free will. If I put food in my (wife's) cat's timed feeder and it rotates at its scheduled time, he has a choice to continue sleeping or wake up, sprint across the house, and scarf it down. I know he will do the latter but that knowledge doesn't imply he's not making that decision. Knowing the outcome of a choice doesn't imply that the choice need not be made.

You do not know the outcome of the event you know that the event is statistically probable. This is not the same as foreknowledge of the event. The day may come when the cat is not feeling well and does not run to that bowl. In that case your prediction of the even will have been wrong. Knowledge of the probably probable is not the same as absolute knowledge of the outcome.

But you seem to understand that in the next paragraph.

The more relevant question might be whether a being who is both omnipotent and omniscient can create a being with free will. It seems that creating someone at that level while knowing exactly which choices he will make and what the outcomes of those choices will be creates a closed system devoid of free will by creating someone specifically such that (or, at least, knowing full well that) those choices will be made and what the consequences will be.

Well, that is the question isn't it? It would seem that if he can then he is not omniscient, and if he can't he is not omnipotent. That is one of the reasons this question is so interesting.

 

[JD50]

Well, that is the question isn't it? It would seem that if he can then he is not omniscient, and if he can't he is not omnipotent. That is one of the reasons this question is so interesting.

Yep, and it's one that's never really been answered.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Can we use the word -- Mystery.....as was stated earlier we also have symantics involved....
It`s obvious we will never agree on what exactly some words mean.....especially core words that are essential to both sides argument....

 

[Retro Rob]

Yep, and it's one that's never really been answered.

Well, atheists seem to be the only persons presenting this dicotomy, yet, I haven't heard an argument that shows how Omniscience explicity negates free-will. You're basically making a claim in the form of a question, and asking us to disprove it. However, I will address it here:

For reasons only known to you, you reject religion (A), and are a non-believer (B). Say if God knew before hand what you would do, that doesn't impact your choice in the sightest -- you still have to choose between A and B, and you made a choice.

Or better still, if you put a bowl of icecream in front of you child next to a steaming bowl of dog****, I can safely assume the child would choose the icecream, even if I knew that for a fact, the child still can choose.

I would go as far to say that "free-will" and "omnicience" are not mutually exclusive terms since omniscience doesn't restrict a person's ability to choose or impact it at all, as in your case, if God knew you'd become a non-believer, you still became a non-believer.

 

[soulcougher73]

For reasons only known to you, you reject religion (A), and are a non-believer (B). Say if God knew before hand what you would do, that doesn't impact your choice in the sightest -- you still have to choose between A and B, and you made a choice.

That is what is called the "illusion of choice". The choice is already known to God, to you it seems as if you have a choice, but in reality its already made up for you.

 

[Retro Rob]

That is what is called the "illusion of choice". The choice is already known to God, to you it seems as if you have a choice, but in reality its already made up for you.

Do you know what "free-will" means? It means to make a choice unconstrained by certain factors.

The only way God could limit free-will, and therefore completely negate choice, is if he limited your decision, which would be by definition, negating free will.

Last I checked, knowing my Son would not eat dogcrap isn't limiting his choices in the matter. The only way I could is if I gave him the choice of only dogcrap, then he wouldn't have free will at all in that regard.

 

[JEDIYoda]

It would seem as if it was the Atheists trying to justify why they are atheists......hmmmmm

 

[Paul98]

Do you know what "free-will" means? It means to make a choice unconstrained by certain factors.

The only way God could limit free-will, and therefore completely negate choice, is if he limited your decision, which would be by definition, negating free will.

Last I checked, knowing my Son would not eat dogcrap isn't limiting his choices in the matter. The only way I could is if I gave him the choice of only dogcrap, then he wouldn't have free will at all in that regard.

You don't know your son wouldn't eat dogcrap, you think that he won't.

You have no "choice" if is know 100% what will happen.

Just think of it as all of time already existing.

 

[soulcougher73]

Do you know what "free-will" means? It means to make a choice unconstrained by certain factors.

The only way God could limit free-will, and therefore completely negate choice, is if he limited your decision, which would be by definition, negating free will.

Last I checked, knowing my Son would not eat dogcrap isn't limiting his choices in the matter. The only way I could is if I gave him the choice of only dogcrap, then he wouldn't have free will at all in that regard.

/sigh

You are not all knowing so your thoughts on your son eatting dog shit are irrelevant. All you can do it presume he wont eat it. But you do not know for a fact he wouldnt. And youd most likely be right as i would also presume a child would not eat dog shit if a bowl of cereal was his other option. But i cannot 100% rule that out as im not all knowing.

You are just using statists to come to your conclusion. Which is fine, but that has nothing to do with being an all knowing god.

And as per the bolded above. Can you tell me what constitutes "certain factors" that can be overlooked pertaining to free will and choices?

 

[SMOGZINN]

It would seem as if it was the Atheists trying to justify why they are atheists......hmmmmm

While this thread poses the question in the form of the powers of a deity, the question itself does not require us to talk about religion at all. This question would be just as interesting if we posited a time traveler going back in time who already knew everything you would do.

If that were possible, could it still be said that you have freewill?

 

[JEDIYoda]

You don't know your son wouldn't eat dogcrap, you think that he won't.

You have no "choice" if is know 100% what will happen.

Just think of it as all of time already existing.

two word come to mind......instead of jumping on the dog poo things and pretending to be an angry Atheist why don`t you comment in a logical scientific manner as you atheist seem to take great pride in doing.....

 

[JEDIYoda]

And as per the bolded above. Can you tell me what constitutes "certain factors" that can be overlooked pertaining to free will and choices?

These atheist sure know how to ask a lot oi questions that they should be able to answer to themselves. Instead they are using your answers to troll you to death....

 

[SMOGZINN]

These atheist sure know how to ask a lot oi questions that they should be able to answer to themselves. Instead they are using your answers to troll you to death....

I think it is a legitimate question. Rob M has stated that there are 'certain factors' that would rule out freewill but it seems that any factor that has so far been asked does fit that category. So, to continue the discussion it would seem to be necessary to find out what factors he thinks do negate freewill since we are obviously not on the same page on that.

 

[soulcougher73]

These atheist sure know how to ask a lot oi questions that they should be able to answer to themselves. Instead they are using your answers to troll you to death....

Shut the fuck up Jedi. No one gives a shit what you think of so called "angry athiests". You have like 2 generic replies to everything. Your schtick is old.

 

[Retro Rob]

You are not all knowing so your thoughts on your son eatting dog shit are irrelevant.

It's an illustration, so it is fitting.

All you can do it presume he wont eat it. But you do not know for a fact he wouldnt.

Are you saying free will is explicity tied to whether or not God has foreknowledge of an event?

It seems to me, that you are saying (A), in order to have free-will, foreknowledge must be absent, and (B) if foreknowledge isn't absent, free-wiill doesn't exist.

I would like you to explain how foreknowledge and free-will are mutually exclusive.

And as per the bolded above. Can you tell me what constitutes "certain factors" that can be overlooked pertaining to free will and choices?

Simple, if I understand your question -- correct me if I do not.

You are not intentionally limited in your choices. You can be an atheists, agnostic, muslim, jew, hindu...whatever, from a religious standpoint. You can be a cop, lawyer, alcoholic, crackhead, congressman...your choices are not being limited by anyone.

I would define "certain factors" as things that are preventing you from being any of those things, and many more.

There is absolutely nothing preventing you from eating dogcrap...if you wanted to.

 

[soulcougher73]

It's an illustration, so it is fitting.



Are you saying free will is explicity tied to whether or not God has foreknowledge of an event?

It seems to me, that you are saying (A), in order to have free-will, foreknowledge must be absent, and (B) if foreknowledge isn't absent, free-wiill doesn't exist.

I would like you to explain how foreknowledge and free-will are mutually exclusive.



Simple, if I understand your question -- correct me if I do not.

You are not intentionally limited in your choices. You can be an atheists, agnostic, muslim, jew, hindu...whatever, from a religious standpoint. You can be a cop, lawyer, alcoholic, crackhead, congressman...your choices are not being limited by anyone.

I would define "certain factors" as things that are preventing you from being any of those things, and many more.

There is absolutely nothing preventing you from eating dogcrap...if you wanted to.

To me, yes, if some godly being has foreknowledge of everything than free will does not exist. I would decribe what he created as an "illusion of choice/free will". It appears we have a chioce, but in reality this godly being already knows what we are going to do and i can in no way choice the "other option" that he didnt predetermine for me.

If i were religious id really have a problem with an all knowing god. Being all powerful is fine with me if their was a god.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Shut the fuck up Jedi. No one gives a shit what you think of so called "angry athiests". You have like 2 generic replies to everything. Your schtick is old.

My 2 generic replies are the truth.....read what you guys post and how you treat the "opposition" as I am sure you consider those who think differently.

"Angry Atheist" is a very appropriate term......or are you going to try to explain it away.....using logic and science...lolol

 

[soulcougher73]

With Adam and Eve, he gave them the command to not eat from the tree of knowledge under penalty of death. If he foreknew they'd do it, then that command would be meaningless, pointless, and would be awfully cruel to tell them not to do something that he had full knowledge that they would do.

I'd say that the fact that God set some guidelines out as regards that tree means that he didn't know what they would do, or there wouldn't have been a point to the guidelines. Why lay out guidelines that would serve no purpose? How could anyone justify God's punishment if he "foreknew"?

Good stuff Rob. I missed it before. If their is a god it would seem odd he would do such a thing if he already knew the outcome. That is unless part of his plan is the "illusion of free will". But if that is the plan, then what is the point of the whole plan to begin with?

This all assuming there is the christian god of course. :whiste:

 

[JD50]

Well, atheists seem to be the only persons presenting this dicotomy, yet, I haven't heard an argument that shows how Omniscience explicity negates free-will. You're basically making a claim in the form of a question, and asking us to disprove it. However, I will address it here:

For reasons only known to you, you reject religion (A), and are a non-believer (B). Say if God knew before hand what you would do, that doesn't impact your choice in the sightest -- you still have to choose between A and B, and you made a choice.

Or better still, if you put a bowl of icecream in front of you child next to a steaming bowl of dog****, I can safely assume the child would choose the icecream, even if I knew that for a fact, the child still can choose.

I would go as far to say that "free-will" and "omnicience" are not mutually exclusive terms since omniscience doesn't restrict a person's ability to choose or impact it at all, as in your case, if God knew you'd become a non-believer, you still became a non-believer.

If god knows you will do something, then you have no choice but to do that thing. If you do something different, then god did not actually know what you would do.

 

[Retro Rob]

To me, yes, if some godly being has foreknowledge of everything than free will does not exist. I would decribe what he created as an "illusion of choice/free will". It appears we have a chioce, but in reality this godly being already knows what we are going to do and i can in no way choice the "other option" that he didnt predetermine for me.

If i were religious id really have a problem with an all knowing god. Being all powerful is fine with me if their was a god.

Unless this is purely a philosophical discussion, I think atheists have a significant burden to prove...that having knowledge itself is a prohibition to free-will.

I used the child analogy to demonstrate that simply having "foreknowledge" does not and cannot impact the act of choosing, and simply saying its the "illusion of choice" isn't a satifactory answer...it's more an a talking point.

My view is this: foreknowing something is one thing...impacting something is another.

 

[JD50]

Unless this is purely a philosophical discussion, I think atheists have a significant burden to prove...that having knowledge itself is a prohibition to free-will.

I used the child analogy to demonstrate that simply having "foreknowledge" does not and cannot impact the act of choosing, and simply saying its the "illusion of choice" isn't a satifactory answer...it's more an a talking point.

My view is this: foreknowing something is one thing...impacting something is another.

You assuming what your child will eat is not even close to the same as an all knowing god. You're making an educated guess that your child will choose ice cream. Is that what you're saying, that god only makes an educated guess as to what we will do?

 

[Retro Rob]

Good stuff Rob. I missed it before. If their is a god it would seem odd he would do such a thing if he already knew the outcome. That is unless part of his plan is the "illusion of free will". But if that is the plan, then what is the point of the whole plan to begin with?

This all assuming there is the christian god of course. :whiste:

Thanks, and fwiw, I don't believe God (if he exists) has a plan for anyone, because that is contrary to free will...completely.

Yeah, I think the whole point of laws/restrictions are to prevent unseen circumstances.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I used the child analogy to demonstrate that simply having "foreknowledge" does not and cannot impact the act of choosing, and simply saying its the "illusion of choice" isn't a satifactory answer...it's more an a talking point.

My view is this: foreknowing something is one thing...impacting something is another.

Lets do this as a thought experiment. Let us say that you go the other way with your prediction and you predict that your son will eat the bowl of dog crap. No, if your knowledge is infallible that means your son must eat the bowl of crap, no matter what he would prefer to do. If this is true then he has no freewill, as he can only do what he was foreordained to do. If he can choose not to eat the bowl of crap then he has freewill and you do not have omniscience.

If you know what choice he will make and you will always be right then you have omniscience. But if you already know every thing he will do then the choices were already made and he never had an opportunity to make a choice. Therefor no Freewill.

If he can do something other then what was foreknown then he has freewill. But If he does something other then what was foreknown then you are missing knowledge and so don't have omniscience.