Critical Logic Failure

[Pedersen]

This affects Christianity, at a minimum. I'm pretty it affects most other religions, too.

Given: God is omniscient (knows anything and everything)
Belief: God has given free will to all people
Result: Any religion that holds these two statements as immutable truths has a critical failure in their belief system.

These two statements are incompatible.

Not a formal proof, but here's how to get to that result.

God knows everything. Therefore, God knows what decisions I will make before I make them. Failure to know this means that God is not omniscient, and does not know everything.

Therefore, anything that has ever happened in the history of the world is something that God knew would happen before it happened. Furthermore, anything that will ever happen in the future is already known by God.

Definition: Predestination: (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=predestination) S: (n) predestination, foreordination, preordination, predetermination ((theology) being determined in advance; especially the doctrine (usually associated with Calvin) that God has foreordained every event throughout eternity (including the final salvation of mankind))

Since everything is already known by God, our futures are predetermined (or predestined, if you prefer that term). Therefore, it is impossibe for us to alter that path.

Definition: Free Will: (http://www.carm.org/atheism/terms.htm) Freedom of self determination and action independent of external causes.

Free will requires that we are able to make choices. Predestination means that we are unable to make choices.

God is omniscient. Our lives are predetermined. Free will does not exist in such an environment.

And yet, such religions state that we have free will. Critical Logic Failure.

Now, I know I'm not the first person in some 5000 years to think of this. And lots of people who lived in those 5000 years are way smarter than I will ever be. Some one must have an answer to this.

Anybody know who it was, and can tell me?

[Sylvia727]

Actually, a lot of Christian theologians have addressed this. Off the top of my head, it was St. Francis of Assisi who speculated that God does not exist inside time as we know it, but rather is outside of time altogether. He knows everything that will happen because for him, everything happens at the same time.

[Boozy]

The French existentialists had a lot of fun with this one. Sartre, specifically, proposed that although man's free will is in actuality an illusion, it is real because it is real to him. That is, if we don't know what we will choose, our choice is a manifestation of free will despite God knowing what we will do in advance. Sort of a forerunner to the anthropic principle.

Like Sylvia said, pretty much every Christian theologian has addressed this question, and a version of it was covered in my ancient Greek philosophy courses as well.... but I can't remember any specifics. Aristotle is a safe bet for some good nuggets.

[AFPheonix]

Or, maybe our lives are like a Choose Your Own Adventure book to God. He knows all possible outcomes for our choices.

[CancelMyService]

Actually, a lot of Christian theologians have addressed this. Off the top of my head, it was St. Francis of Assisi who speculated that God does not exist inside time as we know it, but rather is outside of time altogether. He knows everything that will happen because for him, everything happens at the same time.



Isn't it amazing how God can be defined and redefined to cover any and all loopholes that appear in religions? :p

[DesignFox]

Or, maybe our lives are like a Choose Your Own Adventure book to God. He knows all possible outcomes for our choices.

If God does exist, I think this is a pretty good explanation. :) *giggles*

[Slytovhand]

There was an Islamic philosopher who said something similar about his question. Life is like a game of cards - you get dealt your hand (fate), how you play them is up to you (choice). It's pretty obvious all that can happen, but not what will happen.

But this actually bypasses the actual question, and is semantics. The question suggests that God knows exactly what will happen - not what can happen. Or is that part of the limitation of our explanations and definitions? Technically, why should any such 'god' type person be limited to how we choose to define things??

[Shangri-laschild]

I guess I see it as a parent thing. As a parent, sometimes you know your kid is going to do something but knowing they are going to do it doesn't change the fact that it was their free will and their choice and they did it. Being able to see/predict the future doesn't make the people any less in control.

Lets say you look into the future and see what I have for lunch. How does that make what I ate any less my choice? Just because he can see what we're going to do, doesn't mean it was any less our choice to do those things. The only way it would mean we didn't have free will is if he actually locked in our decisions. Knowing how a movie is going to end doesn't make you in control of the movie or plot.

I guess I just don't see why one has to rule out the other.

[Slytovhand]

I think that's part of the point... if you already know, then isn't that apparent choice already locked in? And thus, in a way, predestined.

Also, if God did create everyone and everything, it has been created in such a way that someone in his position is going to know absolutely everything that is going to happen, and thus the concept of 'choice' and 'free will' is illlusory. Pure logic... if you know the position of everything in the universe, and you know every force acting on everything in the universe, then you can predict with 100% accuracy everything that is going to happen, and has happened... at least, that's one line of philosophy. From that, there is no 'free will'.


Slyt

[Shangri-laschild]

All my friends may know for sure how I'll react to a specific thing. Them knowing for sure doesn't make it any less my choice.

Let's say I'm predestine to do something. If I don't know that I am, and I'm still thinking out my options and making the decision for myself, how is that not free will. I guess maybe we're seeing free will kind of differently is where the difference comes in.

[Slytovhand]

From this last sttement - yes, it would appear so. And that's also an appropriate way to say it...it's about appearences.

We 'appear' to have free will by weighing up the 'options', but in reality, it's already a given. Which is where Pedersen's OP comes in.

We appear to have this thing called 'free will', but God is omniscient - so we don't really (unless we adjust the meaning of the terms).

Slyt

(tag, your turn :D)

[Shangri-laschild]

I guess I still don't see how someone knowing something is going to happen makes it any less free will.

I can see how maybe because he's all powerful he might direct our lives, but it's all a bunch of paths we can take and just because we're given an oppertunity doesn't mean we have to take it. I can give you two choices. Even if I know which one you're going to take, I did still give you two choices. yeah, I'm not god but I guess I still see it as fairly similar.

[Pedersen]

Was going to do some reading up first, but didn't have the chance to do so yet. Too much of this "real life" thing (dammit, been asking for that pause button, keep getting promised it for RL 2.0, but can't get a release date for it!).

Here's something else to consider then.

According to most monotheistic religions, God (by whatever name) is not only omniscient, but also omnipotent.

This means he knows every choice I will make before I make it. Furthermore, he has the capacity to change my mind before I'm even aware that it would be changed. As a result, the only choices I can make are the choices he makes for me.

Basically: An omnipotent, omniscient god makes all choices for all people all the time, especially when you consider that failure to alter the course of events is equivalent to making the choice that whatever was in place will be allowed to continue. The situation becomes even worse if you allow for that same god to be the creator of all existence, since he had to create everything, and put it in motion (or in place) to start with. He made the initial choices that resulted in everything since then.

And he either makes choices today (thus changing our course of action), or fails to make choices (thus continuing on his original plan).

Now, for the other point: What about the fact that we, at a minimum, have the illusion of free will? Isn't that the same thing?

No, it's not. I'll use the analogy of a prison. Pretend for a minute that the nearest major city to you is a prison. Within that prison, you enjoy the ideal of freedom, but you are not able to leave that city. Are you still a free person?

If so, shrink it down. What about if you are restricted to a couple dozen blocks? One block? One building? One room in that building? Remember, under all of those scenarios, you will enjoy the ideal of freedom (however you define that ideal), including receiving sufficient support to do so. For instance, if you are restricted to a single room, then the jobs that are available will allow you to work from that room. Furthermore, you will be given sufficiently advanced technology that you are able to enjoy social interaction, etc, as if you are not a prisoner in that room.

Are you still a prisoner? The same applies to this: You have the illusion of free will, but that is not the same as having free will.

Hope this helps to make things a little more clear as to where I'm coming from.

[Shangri-laschild]

According to most monotheistic religions, God (by whatever name) is not only omniscient, but also omnipotent.

This means he knows every choice I will make before I make it. Furthermore, he has the capacity to change my mind before I'm even aware that it would be changed. As a result, the only choices I can make are the choices he makes for me.

Being able to doesn't mean that he would be for sure. What if he's able to, but doesn't



Basically: An omnipotent, omniscient god makes all choices for all people all the time, especially when you consider that failure to alter the course of events is equivalent to making the choice that whatever was in place will be allowed to continue. The situation becomes even worse if you allow for that same god to be the creator of all existence, since he had to create everything, and put it in motion (or in place) to start with. He made the initial choices that resulted in everything since then.

And he either makes choices today (thus changing our course of action), or fails to make choices (thus continuing on his original plan).

All this changes is the situation that you are in, not the direction you take with it.


Now, for the other point: What about the fact that we, at a minimum, have the illusion of free will? Isn't that the same thing?

No, it's not. I'll use the analogy of a prison. Pretend for a minute that the nearest major city to you is a prison. Within that prison, you enjoy the ideal of freedom, but you are not able to leave that city. Are you still a free person?

Agreed, in this case, you are not still a free person.

The same applies to this: You have the illusion of free will, but that is not the same as having free will.

Hope this helps to make things a little more clear as to where I'm coming from.

While I agree that the illusion of free will is not the same thing as actual free will, I still think we do have free will.

Lets say that the world was put together by god. We are given the situations and are able to react to them how we will. How is that different from if either there is no god or there is one that can't see the future? Still the same ability to make our own choices.

[Slytovhand]

On the last point, what if you are only able to see the colour red? Everything you look at becomes red.

If someone shows you a stack of differently coloured pieces of paper - and you are asked which coloured paper you prefer - do you really have a choice?

[Shangri-laschild]

On the last point, what if you are only able to see the colour red? Everything you look at becomes red.

If someone shows you a stack of differently coloured pieces of paper - and you are asked which coloured paper you prefer - do you really have a choice?

But that still comes back to their only being an illusion of free will and my argument is that there isn't an illusion and that we actually do have free will.

I would also argue, that we always have a choice. Maybe you see everything in red but you hate the color. Then you prefer none of them.

[Pedersen]

What if he's able to, but doesn't

I answered that above:

Basically: An omnipotent, omniscient god makes all choices for all people all the time, especially when you consider that failure to alter the course of events is equivalent to making the choice that whatever was in place will be allowed to continue. The situation becomes even worse if you allow for that same god to be the creator of all existence, since he had to create everything, and put it in motion (or in place) to start with. He made the initial choices that resulted in everything since then.

And he either makes choices today (thus changing our course of action), or fails to make choices (thus continuing on his original plan).

I'm expanding it a bit, because my original premise didn't (to my mind) require it, but I can see now that it does. An omniscient, omnipotent, all-creator god is incapable of allowing his creations to have free will by the very definitions of the words.


Omniscient: Knows everything.
Omnipotent: Can do anything.
All-Creator: Created everything.


If he's omniscient, he knows everything I will ever do before I've ever done it. If he's omnipotent, he's capable of altering those decisions (regardless of whether or not he does). If he created everything, he set up the initial state of everything. Being omniscient, he would know the path that everything would take from that initial state through all of time. The only time that path would change is if he caused a change using some portion of his omnipotence.

The end result of this is that your life is predestined from well before you were born. The only time you would deviate from this path is when god makes a choice to have you deviate from it.

Lets say that the world was put together by god. We are given the situations and are able to react to them how we will. How is that different from if either there is no god or there is one that can't see the future? Still the same ability to make our own choices.

Actually, the situation is very different. You are describing three distinctly different scenarios:

Scenario: World was put together by omniscient, omnipotent god. All choices known and made in advance. Life is predestined. Free will does not exist.

Scenario: No god exists. Universe came into existence spontaneously through unknown methods. Life may still be predestined due to the way the universe functions, and free will may not exist. Of course, life might not be predestined, and free will may exist. Unknown.

Scenario: God does not know the future. Therefore, God is not omniscient. This, though, does allow for the possibility of free will.

On the last point, what if you are only able to see the colour red? Everything you look at becomes red.

If someone shows you a stack of differently coloured pieces of paper - and you are asked which coloured paper you prefer - do you really have a choice?

Very similar. And I have to agree: No, you don't really have a choice. You would have the illusion of a choice, though. Unless all colors looked like the same shade of red to you. You could pick a preferred shade of read, but that's as far as your choice could possibly go.

[Slytovhand]

What if...

God knows every possible scenario - but not the precise one/s that actually happen? Still omniscient, though....

This allows for both - free will and predetermination... doesn't it?

[Sylvia727]

he has the capacity to change my mind before I'm even aware that it would be changed. As a result, the only choices I can make are the choices he makes for me.

Official Christian dogma (at least for the branch I was raised in) states that God has that capability, but chooses not to use it. That when God gave Adam and Eve free will, it actually was significant, and made them different from the animals. God made the choice not to interfere with humans' decisions...I don't remember hearing that he doesn't interfere with the consequences, though.

I don't think that choosing not to interfere is the same thing as choosing the course of events. Physically, it may come out the same, but mentally, spiritually, and philosophically, it's the difference between free will and enslaved will.

Let's say I find some hardcore drugs in my friend's room. I could take the drugs away, and follow her around all day and take away all the drugs she finds. I could rob her of the choice whether or not to do something that could hurt her. Or I could let her know that I'm here to help if she wants me, and step back and let her make her own decision. She decides to take the drugs, ODs, and dies. I didn't kill her. I could have saved her life, but at the cost of her free will. I think that's the key difference. God could interfere, has the ability to interfere, knows what will happen if he doesn't interfere, but chooses not to in order to preserve free will. Let's say I did save my friend's life-- how much of a life would she have, without the ability to choose to endanger herself? How much would I have really saved?

This is actually the point of any religion, philosophy, or conspiracy theory where I throw up my hands and shrug. Alright, I have no free will. What do you want me to do about it? Sure, maybe The Matrix is right and I live a comfortable little life of delusions, without the strength of will to survive the understandings of harsh reality. Okay, whatever. I'll just continue on down the cowtrack now. Mooo.

[Shangri-laschild]

I answered that above:

Oops...yup you did. So in other words, by being able to make a choice in general, you are making one, and your choice (interfearing or not) does affect it. Now I think I'm explaining wrong, but I think I get what you're saying.

Another thing to think about is this...lets say you back me into a corner on something. Just because I reacted how you knew I would and how you were trying to get me to react doesn't mean I didn't freely choose to react like that.

What if...

God knows every possible scenario - but not the precise one/s that actually happen? Still omniscient, though....

This allows for both - free will and predetermination... doesn't it?

This would also work.

[Pedersen]

What if...

God knows every possible scenario - but not the precise one/s that actually happen? Still omniscient, though....

This allows for both - free will and predetermination... doesn't it?

Actually, no, it doesn't, because it violates the definition of omniscient. You're saying "Omniscient except for ...". Omniscient is all knowing, not knowing most of everything.

Official Christian dogma (at least for the branch I was raised in) states that God has that capability, but chooses not to use it. That when God gave Adam and Eve free will, it actually was significant, and made them different from the animals. God made the choice not to interfere with humans' decisions...I don't remember hearing that he doesn't interfere with the consequences, though.

Yep. I've heard similar. But that particular idea negates the idea and definition of omniscience. If God knows everything except what will happen next, then he's not really omniscient, is he?

[Slytovhand]

Actually, Pedersen, when I was doing epistemology (I think it was in that one), the big thing they were focussing on was the actual definitions of the word. I think like you, and was arguing in that direction, but it was the whole 'but that's your definition and interpretation of the word' that was getting shot at...

Which boiled down to - how do we know that 'omniscient' actually means your version instead of 'mine' (ie - knows all possibilities)???





Nah.... didn't rub with me either :p

S

[Sylvia727]

I guess my entire position can be summed up as "knowing what will happen next doesn't influence what will happen next". Y'all may disagree. I don't think that knowledge, isolated from all other factors, has a weight. It can only influence the behaviors and actions of the knower. So if God chooses not to participate, then his knowledge is withdrawn as a factor.

[Pedersen]

I guess my entire position can be summed up as "knowing what will happen next doesn't influence what will happen next". Y'all may disagree. I don't think that knowledge, isolated from all other factors, has a weight. It can only influence the behaviors and actions of the knower. So if God chooses not to participate, then his knowledge is withdrawn as a factor.

That's actually an interesting statement. I don't think I can agree with it, though. If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and the creator of everything, then God did participate at the very beginning. He created everything, and set it all in motion. As a result, he knows exactly how everything will proceed from that starting point. He does not need to do anything any more, he already knows what happens next.

He's already taken away free will by virture of having made the universe, set everything in motion, and knowing what will happen by knowing where everything is and what will happen when things move in the directions he chose. He only needs to participate if he changes his mind.

Current, active participation is no longer a requirement. Here's an analogy for you to ponder.

Imagine that all of life is a great big tv show, and god is watching tv. Now, he also wrote the script for the show (when he planned all of creation: omniscience), he did the production for the show (when he made it: omnipotence), and he knows exactly how the next scene will play out (more omniscience). The only way anything changes from the original script is if god does a quick tweak himself. We're all actors in his tv show, and we can do nothing but follow our script (required for him to be both omnipotent and omniscient).

If he does nothing, we just follow the script. Hell, he could take a bathroom break, ignoring the tv entirely, and we would still have no choice but to follow the script he'd already laid out. He's not participating then. He's not even watching. But, even still, we have no free will.

Which leads back to the original premise: There is a critical logical error in pretty much every monotheistic religion that believes that god is omniscient, omnipotent, and the creator of everythingm and that believes we have free will. I've not even dug into the consequences of this error yet, and those are quite interesting, too, I think. Should go and start that thread.

[Slytovhand]

Hey Pedersen... I got one for ya!


Did God have any choice in what He did in creating the Universe?

Or, does God have ADD? After all - he wrote the script and 'knows' how the whole thing will play out... why bother watching?

And now I remember exactly what I wrote on that paper... perhaps, just perhaps, (since G is omniscient), we aren't what's 'real', we are just one of the possible versions of creation that God is considering before putting out the final version. To us it would appear to be 'real', but to the real reality - obviously we're not. That way, God gets to know all possibilities because He gets to see them all run through his head - but there is no compulsion to actually create things that way. Good and evil don't exist - because in this way, nothing actually does - except God and his thoughts..."I think, therefore you might be..."

S

[Pedersen]

Did God have any choice in what He did in creating the Universe?

How should I know? I don't presume to be god, nor know what restrictions he has on himself. For all I know, God actually does have free will. Of course, he could be just as constrained to a lack of free will.

In which case, God himself got a raw deal :)

Or, does God have ADD? After all - he wrote the script and 'knows' how the whole thing will play out... why bother watching?

He really doesn't have a choice, though. Being omniscient means knowing everything. Which means that, even if he's off taking a piss, he still knows what's going on here. Which means I pity him all the more. Us mortals can choose to hide from reality. That choice itself is taken away from him if he's omniscient.

And now I remember exactly what I wrote on that paper... perhaps, just perhaps, (since G is omniscient), we aren't what's 'real', we are just one of the possible versions of creation that God is considering before putting out the final version.

And yet, whether or not we are in the real reality or not is irrelevant. You're doing a variation of Descartes' thought experiment, so let's carry it forward a bit.

Descartes' fundamental premise was simple: I doubt everything that can possibly be doubted. I am unable to tell the difference between dream and wakefulness, so I doubt my senses. This means that all scientific experiment must be doubted, as well, since all of it relies on my being able to trust at least one of my senses (any measurements must, in the end, be read by the eyes or heard by the ears). It is possible that some outside force makes math work, so I doubt the theorems of math. The only thing I cannot doubt is that I am actually doubting. Doubting is a thought process. Ergo, I think therefore I am.

Now, remember that I'm doubting my senses? I am unable to prove you exist except as a construct of my mind. However, in that fashion, at a minimum, you must exist, since I am communicating with you. You may be more real than a thought experiment, but I am unable to prove that. However, you are at least as real as a thought experiment, and therefore at least as real as anything else I am able to perceive.

Ergo, in some fashion, you exist. You are real.

This can be extrapolated to the rest of creation. In some fashion, even if only as a thought construct, all of creation exists. Are we necessarily the final form of reality that God will make? Who knows? But, for the moment, we are as real as anything else.

Thus, the question of what reality might become is rendered irrelevant.

Yes, I really do spend my time thinking about stuff like this. I'm just that weird :)

[Evandril]

Assuming the presence of such a diety, free will is still possible. The fact God is aware of what choices you will make, and set it up so that you would make them does not mean you were not free to make other choices...It just means you *wouldn't*, though you could.

An analogy would be putting some ants near some loose sugar. The fact you know they will gather and eat the sugar doesn't negate their choice in doing so...It was quite possible for them to ignore it, but they are unlikely to make that choice.

[Slytovhand]

But, in this case, God has actuallly created people to make the choice of his choosing - not the individual's.

[Pedersen]

The fact God is aware of what choices you will make, and set it up so that you would make them does not mean you were not free to make other choices...It just means you *wouldn't*, though you could.

So, it is your premise that you are capable of making a choice that an omniscient entity would not know you were going to make?

I suggest examining the definition of omniscient (http://www.google.com/search?q=define+omniscient). That link takes you to various definitions for the word. They all have something in common though: They all say something similar to "knows everything", and none of them add in "except".

If god is omniscient, then he knows what choices you will make before you make them. It is not possible to make a choice that he does not know you will make by the very definition of the word.

Free will means that you are capable of choosing between options. Omniscient means that your choice will be known before you make a choice.

Now, go and look up omnipotent (http://www.google.com/search?q=define+omnipotent). They all say something similar to "Can do anything", and do not include an "except" clause. If god is omnipotent, he is capable of configuring things such that I will make a different choice than I would otherwise make, and of doing so in such a way that I will not be aware that I have been manipulated.

Now, god either chooses to interfere, or he does not. If he chooses to interfere, then he removes my free will (this, I believe, is unarguable). If he does not, then he allows me to continue on the original path I would have taken that he already knows. However, god has to make the choice whether or not to interfere with my path.

Therefore, god chooses which path I will take, not me. I have no free will. Not if he is omniscient and omnipotent. It is not possible.

An analogy would be putting some ants near some loose sugar. The fact you know they will gather and eat the sugar doesn't negate their choice in doing so...It was quite possible for them to ignore it, but they are unlikely to make that choice.

Actually, this analogy is poor. There could be a host of reasons why those ants would not choose the sugar that you would be unaware of. Perhaps the sugar is tainted. Perhaps those specific ants are seeking a different food than sugar at that time. Perhaps their receptors are incapable of detecting anything but brown sugar, and you put down the white sugar.

Any number of reasons. However, they all rely on something you are unaware of. By the definitions used in various religions, god is omniscient. There is nothing he is unaware of. Therefore, he would know, as a fact, whether those ants would go for that sugar before the ants were even brought into the same vicinity with that sugar.

But, in this case, God has actuallly created people to make the choice of his choosing - not the individual's.

Well said. And much shorter than I said it :)

[Evandril]

So, it is your premise that you are capable of making a choice that an omniscient entity would not know you were going to make?

No, I said you have the choice to make various different decisions...but, having all the information, what choice I will make would already be known to God, though it is unknown to me before I make it. I do know I'll present my kids 'choices' I know the outcome to, to let them 'choose' things for themselves. Does the fact I am sure of their choice negate the fact they did make the choice?


Actually, this analogy is poor. There could be a host of reasons why those ants would not choose the sugar that you would be unaware of. Perhaps the sugar is tainted. Perhaps those specific ants are seeking a different food than sugar at that time. Perhaps their receptors are incapable of detecting anything but brown sugar, and you put down the white sugar.

Any number of reasons. However, they all rely on something you are unaware of. By the definitions used in various religions, god is omniscient. There is nothing he is unaware of. Therefore, he would know, as a fact, whether those ants would go for that sugar before the ants were even brought into the same vicinity with that sugar.

Which is why I used the example. I cannot give an 'omniscient' example, since that is something we've yet to achieve in any reguard, to my knowledge.

I worked retail sales for a good amount of time, and the main focus of sales is to cause someone to make the choice you want, preferably without them noticing it. Even when the outcome was what we knew it would be...It was still their choice, 'predestined' or no.

[Pedersen]

No, I said you have the choice to make various different decisions...but, having all the information, what choice I will make would already be known to God, though it is unknown to me before I make it. I do know I'll present my kids 'choices' I know the outcome to, to let them 'choose' things for themselves. Does the fact I am sure of their choice negate the fact they did make the choice?

Again, not the same thing, and not even close.

Reconsider this: God knows everything. God can do anything. There are no limits on either of those two statements.

God must choose, at any given time, to intervene or to refrain from intervening. In either case, he has chosen what I will do, not me. How? Because he knew what I would choose. By intervening, he will have changed my mind. By refraining from intervening, he has decided I will make the choice I was going to make. In either case, the choice was his, not mine.

Now, I have the illusion of having made a choice, but that is all that it is: An illusion.

And that is not the same as having genuine free will. I'll reuse an example I had used earlier in the thread: Suppose you are confined to a room. In that room you have complete freedom. You have replicator technology to give you anything you want, and any food you can imagine. You even have holodeck technology to simulate leaving the room. You may have people come over, do whatever with you, and leave. You, though, are unable to leave that room. Are you free?

That is as close as I can come to a decent analogy. I hope it helps to explain it a bit better.

[Evandril]

Expand 'room' to planet, and I'll ask you, are we free? Same idea, there are limits to what you can do. I'd love to fly, but haven't figured it out yet...since I cannot do what I want, does that make me not free? In my own viewpoint, just because someone might know what I will do next does not mean I am not free to make my own choices.

Another point on the 'omnipotent' portion. If they wanted to create something with free will, they would be able to, or else the label no longer fits. How it works would not be obvious, but if they can do *ANYTHING*, then of course they could do so. 'tis why I've never understood the entire idea of praying for something...If God's plan is perfect, and you want it changed...Doesn't that defeat the purpose? ;)

[Pedersen]

Expand 'room' to planet, and I'll ask you, are we free?

You've sidestepped the very basic question by playing semantics. Surely you're not going to reduce your argument to that?

In my own viewpoint, just because someone might know what I will do next does not mean I am not free to make my own choices.

Which means that you either are ignoring that omnipotent+omniscient means your choices are made for you, or you're agreeing that free will is an illusion. Which one is it?

Another point on the 'omnipotent' portion. If they wanted to create something with free will, they would be able to, or else the label no longer fits.

Congratulations, you've spotted the one hole in my argument that I have been able to devise at all.

Now, here's the flaw in that flaw: Omniscient + Omnipotent. Not one or the other. God is both.

If god makes it so that people are capable of making an actual choice, then he will not know the outcome of that choice in advance. He is no longer omniscient.

The way that he is defined by many major religions is that he is both omniscient and omnipotent. Top that off with a helping of "Everybody has free will", and there's the logic failure.

The three are not compatible. They cannot be.

As it is, you're waving a magic wand over everything and saying "Well, I'm just ignoring the logic of the situation. I have free will because I say so." Or you're saying that he doesn't actually make a choice to intervene. However, failure to act is still an action. He has to choose what to let me do when he is both omniscient and omnipotent.

How it works would not be obvious, but if they can do *ANYTHING*, then of course they could do so.

You'll note that I'm not arguing how it works. I'm arguing the simple logic of the situation. Show me a means by which god can be omniscient and omnipotent and still give us free will, and I'll accept it. I'd like to hear it.

[Slytovhand]

Can God make a round square? Or how about create a universe with no hypotheticals?? :p

Congratulations, you've spotted the one hole in my argument that I have been able to devise at all.

I wasn't going to point out the blatantly obvious flaw, so I just let it go...:p

But... why can't God - getting bored with his omniscience, choose to sort of... forget? After all, I'm pretty sure there are things that you know, but don't have going around in your current memory and immediately aware of.

(ok - so it's going a bit off track, but hey.... I don't go with your original premise anyway! :D)

[Pedersen]

But... why can't God - getting bored with his omniscience, choose to sort of... forget? After all, I'm pretty sure there are things that you know, but don't have going around in your current memory and immediately aware of.

Well, there's only one issue I have with that: If god pushes something out of his mind, he is making himself unaware of it. If he is unaware of something, then his no longer omniscient.

With the way religions seem to define god, he is, therefore, no longer god, either.

(ok - so it's going a bit off track, but hey.... I don't go with your original premise anyway! :D)

You don't agree with the logic in my original premise? Then, by all means, show me how I'm wrong. I'd genuinely like to hear it.

[Slytovhand]

You don't agree with the logic in my original premise? Then, by all means, show me how I'm wrong. I'd genuinely like to hear it.

Well - specifically, that there is such a god that is both omniscient and omnipotent....

Too... 'monotheistic' for my tastes. :D


BTW - as to your previous - that would mean that humans are now forcing God to be a particular way. God wouldn't have free will ...

slyt

[Slytovhand]

Oh - new thought...

to Evandril..

we humans are capable of making robots. We also have computers, and what we do in those computers is play games (well...ok, some of us :p) and in those games are NPC's that we interact with. Those NPC's have AI. Do they have choice?

In the near future, we will have more complex robots, and better AI. When we interact with them, will they then have 'free will'? There are 'logic' processors built into various electronics, so that given a stimulus, they will respond a certain way. The more complex the machine, the longer it will be able to store the memory of those responses, and also the consequences of them.. and thus, next time around, given the relevantly same stimulus, they will act again according to that information... maybe the same, maybe different.

Either way, they will be programmed to operate under a set logic processes.

Humans are just a very complex machine....

[joe hx]

ooh old thread...

Anybody know who it was, and can tell me?

your arguement sounds much like Epicurius:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

[smileyeagle1021]

darn you slyt... you beat me to the punch.

we don't have free will... whether we are slaves to a predetermined fate by God or merely our circumstances, it boils down to the fact that the brain is little more than a very complex biological machine and will be limited as any machine would be. That does not mean we don't have choice, just that our choices are limited, in some cases so limited as just one.

[Pedersen]

That does not mean we don't have choice, just that our choices are limited, in some cases so limited as just one.

Actually, smiley, I don't think we have more than one choice ever, personally. Our brain is just a machine. Push one button, we make one choice. Pull another lever, that choice is changed. And we can't control the buttons and levers. They're all pushed and pulled in response to external stimuli.

[Slytovhand]

darn you slyt... you beat me to the punch.

Beat you to the punch??????

That was posted almost a year ago!!!

[HYHYBT]

"Omnipotent" would logically include the ability to grant free will to anyone or anything you wish to have it, regardless of whether you know what choices will result.

[Pedersen]

"Omnipotent" would logically include the ability to grant free will to anyone or anything you wish to have it, regardless of whether you know what choices will result.

Not in dispute, actually. You're kind of trying to sneak this point in, by going for the obvious "Well, God is omnipotent, and can therefore do anything."

The problem is that, logically, at least one of the following four statements must false, as they cannot all be true.


God is omniscient.
God is omnipotent.
God is the creator of everything.
Humans have free will.


The past several pages of this thread have been devoted to explanations of this. However, a quick summary:

If God is omniscient, then he already knows everything that will happen, including what he himself will do in two million years. There is no possibility for gray. It is even more set in stone than the script of a DVD you've watched two hundred times, since you could still forget a word or two, or miss a leaf falling in the background, etc. He knows all of that.

If God is omnipotent, then (among his powers) he can go back in time and change my mind from any time in the future. For instance, if (in two million years) he decides that he no longer likes the consequences of a decision I made, he can undo it. Furthermore, he can undo it in such a way that I will have no idea my mind was changed.

Couple omniscience with omnipotence, and you find that God must actually choose whether or not to allow your "choice" to stand. If he does nothing, you get to do what you've "decided" to do. On the other hand, he can change your mind before you realize there's a choice to make. So, before your choice begins, he has to decide what to do, including doing nothing.

From that, follows this statement:

If God is the all creator, then he actually set up everything using his omnipotence and omniscience. At the very beginning of time, he decided how everything would happen, right down to the smallest hydrogen atom moving in whichever direction. Your actions were determined before Adam and Eve. Put all of this together, and he actually chose, well before creating Eve, that he would a) create her and b) punish her (and all women) for all eternity for eating the apple.

Another way to look at it: God already did the whole decision making process. Of course he's promised not to interfere any more. It's already done! For him, he's seen the entirety of history, from beginning to end of the universe. He made his choices about how things would happen back when he first created the universe. Everything is already going the way he knew it would, and the way he wants it to go.

If humans have free will, then at least one of the above has to be false. Possibly all of them. And, since at least Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have the same fundamental tenets, then their view of God must also be flawed. I do believe that there is something greater than us, but don't know what that something is. But I do know what it isn't, and that's what those three religions define as God. As long as they hold those four statements to be true, they cannot be correct.

[Rapscallion]

God is omniscient.
God is omnipotent.
God is the creator of everything.


I've often thought of these sort of statements as being a case of, "My god's dick is bigger than your god's dick." Bit of interfaith boasting, sort of affair.

Just didn't think it through when they were coming up with it.

Rapscallion

[HYHYBT]

The problem is that, logically, at least one of the following four statements must false, as they cannot all be true.

Yes, I've read the whole thread. Absolutely nothing in it shows that one of those statements must be false. Knowing that if you do x then soandso will choose to do y does not negate the fact that y is free to choose.

[Pedersen]

Yes, I've read the whole thread. Absolutely nothing in it shows that one of those statements must be false. Knowing that if you do x then soandso will choose to do y does not negate the fact that y is free to choose.

Then you have failed to understand the difference between the illusion of free will versus actually having free will.

Free will is the ability to make a choice, simply put.

The illusion that you have if you try to accept all four statements ignores the fact that it is actually God who makes the choice, not you. If you accept all four of those statements as fact, then the actual flow of making a choice is more like this:

You are standing at a fork in the road. You may go left or right. As you ponder, God makes a choice first: Thanks to his omniscience, God knows which direction you will go before you arrive at the fork. However, he has an extra choice to make: Will he allow you to go the direction you would choose without his interference?

Let's assume you would go left. He would prefer you go right. Before you arrive at the fork in the road, he must choose whether or not he should use some of his omnipotence to make you go right instead. Even if he chooses to do nothing (and even if that choice is simply him keeping a promise he made to humanity to avoid interfering), you are only going to the left because he chose to let you go to the left. Had he chosen differently, it is entirely possible (again, thanks to his omnipotence) that you would never have known you wanted to go left.

And don't go for the "Knowing that if you do x then soandso will choose to do y does not negate the fact that y is free to choose." type of line here. We are not talking about humans limiting the choices of others. We are talking about God himself. Jehovah. Yahweh. Allah. The Big Cheese. The all-knowing, all-powerful, maker of everything, father of Jesus, what he says goes, period, no ifs, no ands, no buts, no disobedience possible. Quite literally, his word is the law.

For us mere mortals, we can use the "Well, if I do X, then John will do Y" and only be mostly correct. John could choose to do Z. How many times does it happen that you think you know what someone will do/how they will react, but then they do something completely different, and you have to say "I didn't see that coming!" If you have ever been surprised by the actions of someone else, then that's happened.

God can not be surprised. He knows what we will do. Furthermore, if he changes what we will do, he knows the consequences of that. His knowledge is absolute. He will never be surprised by our reactions, because he is omniscient. He knew our reactions before we knew we could react.

He makes a choice about every choice we make, and his choice is to decide if we are allowed to make the choice we would make on our own.

All we have is the illusion of free will. If you'd like to use the same copout that I've addressed (http://www.fratching.com/showpost.php?p=12615&postcount=13) and (http://www.fratching.com/showpost.php?p=12624&postcount=17) debunked (http://www.fratching.com/showpost.php?p=12655&postcount=24) numerous (http://www.fratching.com/showpost.php?p=12752&postcount=29) times (http://www.fratching.com/showpost.php?p=12766&postcount=33) throughout this thread, well, I can't stop you. But I can be bored by reiterating the same point to the same question, without actually seeing a working explanation (not even physics or biology based, just go for a purely logical mechanism, since that's easiest) for how an omnipotent and omniscient entity can possibly co-exist with entities that have genuine free will, and not just the illusion of free will.

[HYHYBT]

You haven't debunked anything at all. You've *stated* that those four items are contradictory, and gone on long so-called explanations that if God knows what we will choose with ourselves and the world the way he has made them, then we don't really have a choice (much condensed). And then when someone points out that you haven't actually led logically from one point to the other, you call that a copout.

[BroomJockey]

And then when someone points out that you haven't actually led logically from one point to the other, you call that a copout.

Actually, he has. But I can see you're having issues grasping it. So I'll put it to you this generalized situation:

Your best friend in the whole wide world, who's known you since childhood, whom knows you so well that you've almost got a psychic bond, and knows how you'll react in any situation, one day goes insane. They know if placed in a situation where there are literally only two options, your death, or your wife's death, you'd pick to die yourself. Your former best friend now puts you in that situation, and asks you to choose, you or your wife. You choose to die yourself, as he knew you would.

Now, imagine that your insane former BFF is God. God not only knows what you'll do in a situation, they've created that situation where you'll make that decision. If God created everything in the Universe with clockwork precision, knowing where everything is and what it's capable of, then with that perfect knowledge, he knows everything that will occur from the moment time starts. It's simply a very complicated Rube Goldberg device. Since God put the device together, and knows how it works, at any point, he can step in and change how it works. That's the omnipotence. But since he knows how it all works, no matter what changes he's made, he always knows how it'll turn out. That's the omniscience. If he always knows what will happen, whether he's made changes or not, and he's the one who put you in every situation, knowing how you'll react, then you have no free will. He knows you better than that hypothetical BFF, he knows every thought you've had, everything you've done, and everything you will do.

[Pedersen]

Okay, HYBHYT, we need a formal proof, instead of simply explaining the English language. Very well, then. Proof by contradiction (http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/proofs/proofs.contradict.html):

My assertion is that the following statements are incompatible: God is omnipotent. God is omniscient. God created everything. Humans have free will.

Since I am already asserting the opposite of the last statement, we can use these statements as the basis of the proof by contradiction.


Humans have free will.
Free will requires that the possessor of free will be able to make a conscious choice.
Humans are able to make a conscious choice between a set of options.
A given human, exercising his or her free will, has sole control over the choice coming from the decision making process. Others may influence the process by discussing consequences and benefits, but the final choice is the sole purview of the human making the choice.


Rebuttal: God is omnipotent. Therefore, he can control the decision making process of a given human being. This is in contradiction to point 4.

Conclusion: "Humans have free will" is in direct contradiction to "God is omnipotent". Therefore, either God is not omnipotent, or humans do not have free will. The original assertion that at least one of the four statements is false is confirmed.

Side Note: Thank you for making me write it this way. It shows me that God's omniscience is irrelevant. Simply the fact that he is omnipotent means that we do not have free will.

And before saying "What if he chooses not to interfere? We have free will if he doesn't use his power!", I'll refer you back to the proof above. Nowhere is it required that God actually uses his power to alter things. Only that the power actually exists. Once the power exists, free will goes away. If he chooses not to use his power, then we will have the illusion of having free will, but that is not the same as having actual free will.

Now, if you can punch a hole in the proof, please do so.

[bunnyboy]

...And the reconstructionist pagans are sitting back and enjoying the show, because we realize, the gods are not omnipotent, and that we have free will.... ah life is grand.

Well that and the omnipotence of God and the debate of free will are not part of Logic but Metaphysics so... meh.

[Gravekeeper]

...And the reconstructionist pagans are sitting back and enjoying the show, because we realize, the gods are not omnipotent, and that we have free will.... ah life is grand.

Well that and the omnipotence of God and the debate of free will are not part of Logic but Metaphysics so... meh.

Don't make me shave your stomach and knit a sweater.

[HYHYBT]

Yes, that makes the distinction much clearer. We disagree about what "free will" means. If your notion of free will has hidden within it that no one could possibly have forced you to do differently, whether they ever actually do or not, then you are of course right that it contradicts omnipotence.

And I apologize for the tone of my pervious post (and would have sooner had I been able to get a connection. Happens everytime we get a good rain)

[Pedersen]

Yes, that makes the distinction much clearer. We disagree about what "free will" means. If your notion of free will has hidden within it that no one could possibly have forced you to do differently, whether they ever actually do or not, then you are of course right that it contradicts omnipotence.

Your reply begs the question: What definition can you have for free will that does not actually require the decision maker to be able to make a choice?

And I apologize for the tone of my pervious post (and would have sooner had I been able to get a connection. Happens everytime we get a good rain)

Considering the tone of many of my posts, yours was positively mild. Don't worry about it.

[HYHYBT]

No, it doesn't beg that question at all. So long as no one ever actually prevents you from being able to decide for yourself, it's irrelevant that it *could* be done. You almost might as well say that my freedom to choose whether to get lunch from Zaxby's or Captain D's tomorrow is "false" because you could, though you never would, look up my address and shoot me during the night.

This may just make things worse, but I was thinking about this thread earlier today and got to wondering about what "omnipotent" really means as well. Is it intrinsically possible for an omnipotent being to both do something and not do it? Sorry, I'm really at expressing this sort of thing, but it's related to what I was trying to say before. If an omnipotent being (and omniscient, so there's no need to worry about his changing his mind later even if you're still inclined to thinking that putting God outside of time is cheating) decides that it will never interfere with its creatures' free will, then in a sense it becomes impossible for him to do so because interfering would not be not interfering.

Which I suppose could all be shortened to "my understanding of omnipotence does not include the ability to do that which reduces to nonsense."

[Pedersen]

Honestly, I'm tired of this. If you have a hole to poke in the logic, I'll debate it with you. Right now, you're going in a circle of "We have free will and God is omnipotent because I believe we have free will and God is omnipotent." And a nice circular argument has finally gotten overly boring.

Hell, you haven't even answered the question I asked before of how you can define free will in such a way that someone else can make the choice and yet you can have free will. Let me know when you actually have a hole to poke in the logic.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

That isn't the issue, I would think.

The point is that god being Omniscient and the free will of humanity aren't mutually exclusive. Just because someone knows what you will decide doesn't necessarily mean you don't make the decision.

Let's say that someone knows I am going to vote republican in an election. That they know which person I will vote for doesn't change that I have the ability to choose whoever I will, all it means is that the person has enough information about me and the situation to figure it out. In Gods case, he has infinite information and cognitive ability...

[Pedersen]

Wingates_Hellsing: Omniscient, as it turns out, is irrelevant. See http://www.fratching.com/showpost.php?p=32202&postcount=43

[HYHYBT]

Hell, you haven't even answered the question I asked before of how you can define free will in such a way that someone else can make the choice and yet you can have free will. Let me know when you actually have a hole to poke in the logic.

Free will, to me, means I get to choose. It really is that simple.

To you, apparently, it means that you get to choose PLUS no one *could* interfere whether they actually do or not. I very much would like to understand why it isn't instead the actual existence of interference that matters, but, so far as I can tell, that is precisely what you have only said that you've explained, rather than actually explaining it.

I really don't see any way to explain it more clearly.

-*-Okay, I've spent the last half hour or so at this point, typing another paragraph here about five times so far, erasing each and replacing it with something different, and in the meantime I *think* I see your meaning, and only missed it because it depends on what *isn't* in your fourth point a couple of posts ago. A given human, exercising his or her free will, has sole control over the choice coming from the decision making process. Others may influence the process by discussing consequences and benefits, but the final choice is the sole purview of the human making the choice.There are countless other things that go into forming any decision, such as biology and upbringing. The problem seems to be with whether or not those count as interference. If any of them do, then of course we don't really have free will whether God even exists or not: the contradiction isn't between free will and omnipotence at all (which would explain why I didn't see it there), but between free will and, our very concrete existence. If biology and upbringing and whatall *don't* count, the only thing I see left that could count would be direct miracle, and it's back to "so long as he doesn't actually do it it doesn't matter that he could." Either way, it puts the answer back into exactly what you mean by free will; I mean the second and you, as best I can tell, mean the first.

[HYHYBT]

Sorru, just one more point: it's not like having more than one understanding of "free" is uncommon. If I'm holding a "buy one, get one free" sale on, say, chocolate bars, is the second bar free? It is, at least if you were going to buy the first one anyway, because I didn't raise the price first nor can you get one at half off. But it isn't, in the sense that you can't just get the free one by itself. For that matter, suppose I'm giving them all away for no charge. So it's free... unless your definition of "free" means you not only don't have to pay me, but also have no other consequences like gaining weight. Which, if any, of these forms of "free" you consider to be false depends on what you meant by "free" in the first place, but naturally if you mean the third when you say it's not free and I mean the first when I say that it is we're not going to get very far.

But read the other post first; given the time there's a strong possibility that this one is just me babbling :)

[Gravekeeper]

Buddhism does not believe in absolute free will, nor absolute determinism so its fully compatible with the problem at hand. But than Buddhism doesn't have a supposedly omnipotent supergod. So this logic problem is mainly for the God/Allah/Yahweh crowd. Which is no fun.

Buddhism is one of the few religions that fully embrace science and logic. Since the default stance is not one of utter denial that there could be any other possible explanation. But rather to constantly seek said possible explanations regardless of where they are found.

Heck, if you want to really fark with your head, look at Hinduism. Depending on what school, you're either delightfully free or adhering utterly 100% to a pre-written script you have no say whatsoever over.

[BroomJockey]

Free will, to me, means I get to choose. It really is that simple.

To you, apparently, it means that you get to choose PLUS no one *could* interfere whether they actually do or not. I very much would like to understand why it isn't instead the actual existence of interference that matters,

Okay, you want to understand why it isn't the use of the interference, rather than just the existence of the ability to interfere.

Easy. I make a choice. If that is the choice God took issue with, he goes and changes it. We can agree this situation would be me not having free will, correct? Because I am doing what God wants me to do. God can change it so that I really really wanna do the other, so even wanting to do it doesn't change the fact that I'm doing it because God said so.

Now, I make a choice. God approves of this choice, and so doesn't interfere. I'm still only doing it because God wants me to do it. It doesn't matter that I want to do it, I wanted to do it when he changed my decision too. This is just less work for God. The only reason God doesn't change a decision is if it's something he'd have changed it TO. Thus God is still making the decision either way.

If God is making the decisions, then I don't have free will.




As for your tangent about biology having an impact on free will, this is the thread addressing religion, feel free to make a new one about biology, and then we'll have a really interesting situation on our hands.

[Pedersen]

Free will, to me, means I get to choose. It really is that simple.


Hey, we happen to agree! How about that? In fact, I think I said that somewhere... let me see...

Free will requires that the possessor of free will be able to make a conscious choice.

Yep. Not exactly the same words, but definitely the same meaning.

To you, apparently, it means that you get to choose PLUS no one *could* interfere whether they actually do or not.

I'm sorry, but you failed to remember what else I've said:

A given human, exercising his or her free will, has sole control over the choice coming from the decision making process. Others may influence the process by discussing consequences and benefits, but the final choice is the sole purview of the human making the choice.

If others may influence, then of course they may interfere, as the two are very closely related words and can, in some cases, be used interchangeably. The only major difference is connotation, in that influence is usually viewed positively, while interference is viewed negatively.

However, the possessor of said free will must be able to control the choice that gets made. If they are unable to control their choice, then they cannot be said to have free will, can they? If they can, then please provide an explanation for how they can be said to have free will but be unable to control the choice they make.

I very much would like to understand why it isn't instead the actual existence of interference that matters, but, so far as I can tell, that is precisely what you have only said that you've explained, rather than actually explaining it.

Broom explained it, but I'll try rephrasing, since I'm hoping that one of these explanations will get through to you.

For any given choice I make, if God doesn't like it, then he must make a choice: Will he force me to do something different, or will he allow my choice to stand? He must choose whether or not to intervene to coerce me into making the choice that he approves.

At that very instant, I lose control of the outcome of my decision making process. It is not me making the choice, it is God.

It doesn't even matter if he happens to be looking away at that moment, comes back 2 days later and says "Crap. I meant to make sure that Pedersen bought that hideous car the other day after what he said about me on that forum." He's omnipotent. He can go back in time and change my mind, giggling about it all the while.

Here's an analogy for you: At work, they likely use a proxy server to get you on the internet (assuming your work gives you internet access). Every web page you visit, the proxy server must evaluate whether or not to allow you to go there. Even if the proxy server is configured to allow all requests from all people in the company, the proxy server must still evaluate if you are allowed to go there.

In other words, even if it will always choose not to interfere, even if it will always do nothing, it still must choose what sites to allow you to visit. If life is the internet, God is the proxy server.

I really don't see any way to explain it more clearly.

Neither do I.

Okay, you want to understand why it isn't the use of the interference, rather than just the existence of the ability to interfere.

Good luck Broom. I sometimes think that HYBHYT is just messing with me here.

As for your tangent about biology having an impact on free will, this is the thread addressing religion, feel free to make a new one about biology, and then we'll have a really interesting situation on our hands.

Heh. We already did. It's over here (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=706).

[BroomJockey]

Heh. We already did. It's over here (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=706).

Why am I not surprised that YOU made it. :p

[HYHYBT]

Of course I'm not messing with you; there's no need to get insulting.

So long as a proxy server is set to always "decide" to let you see whatever you want, you really are free to do so. If it blocks certain sites, you are still free to pick from the remaining ones. If God does in fact allow us to choose only when he likes the choice, then we're not really free to do otherwise. If he decides to let us do whatever we want even if he'd rather we do otherwise, then we *are* free to do as we like.

Okay, you want to understand why it isn't the use of the interference, rather than just the existence of the ability to interfere.

Easy. I make a choice. If that is the choice God took issue with, he goes and changes it. We can agree this situation would be me not having free will, correct? Because I am doing what God wants me to do. God can change it so that I really really wanna do the other, so even wanting to do it doesn't change the fact that I'm doing it because God said so.

Here's precisely the trouble I have with this argument: it hinges on the sentence "If that is the choice God took issue with, he goes and changes it." If this sentence is false (he does not change choices he takes issue with), then none of what follows is true either. Again, you've reworded and rephrased without really even touching on how God's deciding to let you do whatever you want regardless of what he'd prefer stops you from doing so.

[Gravekeeper]

Why am I not surprised that YOU made it. :p

Me neither. Though I'll give him points for the term "moist robot".

[BroomJockey]

Here's precisely the trouble I have with this argument: it hinges on the sentence "If that is the choice God took issue with, he goes and changes it." If this sentence is false (he does not change choices he takes issue with), then none of what follows is true either.

God created everything, right? And before he created people? That means he knows how everything up to that point for certain. He then created people, and placed them in a system where he knew how everything would react.

No, I'm getting too complicated. This is really quite simple. Lack of exercising the ability to do something doesn't mean you don't have the ability, correct? As the admin on CS, Raps has the ability to ban people at any time. Just because he doesn't ban someone for something doesn't mean he's lost the ability to do so. Thus, it can reasonably be assumed that if someone is continually allowed to post on CS, it's at Raps's sufferance. If they did something egregious enough, that power would be exercised.

God has the ability to change a decision so thoroughly that it is indistinguishable from natural desire. Just because he doesn't do so doesn't mean he doesn't have the power. Thus, any choice you made can reasonably be assumed to be at his sufferance. If someone did something egregious enough, that power would be exercised. The only thing is, the world would never know.

[HYHYBT]

The thing is, we *agree* on everything you just said. Except for "If someone did something egregious enough, that power would be excercised," anyway, and that's purely a matter of opinion. I still see this as coming down to whether it still qualifies as "free will" if there are any possible limits to how far that freedom goes; I think it does, if the phrase has any meaning at all, since freedom of any kind has always had limits; you all seem to see it the opposite way. Not much point in continuing to talk past each other, so I'm bailing out.

[Pedersen]

Me neither. Though I'll give him points for the term "moist robot".

Nah, take the points back. Read that term some where else.

No, I'm getting too complicated. This is really quite simple. Lack of exercising the ability to do something doesn't mean you don't have the ability, correct? As the admin on CS, Raps has the ability to ban people at any time. Just because he doesn't ban someone for something doesn't mean he's lost the ability to do so. Thus, it can reasonably be assumed that if someone is continually allowed to post on CS, it's at Raps's sufferance. If they did something egregious enough, that power would be exercised.

Excellent example. Now, since HYBHYT has rejected plain English versions before, allow me to put it into something closer to a logical proof (sorry, as it turns out, the proof deviates a bit from what you said, but I think it makes the example stronger, not weaker).


In forum software, the power exists to edit posts made by other users. Forum administrators and moderators are the sole possessors of that power. For the rest of this proof, administrators and moderators will be called "the mod team".
Failure to exercise that power does not reduce or remove that power.
When you make a post, that post will be read by other users of the forum, including the mod team.
If you make a post which violates the rules of the forum, that post may be edited by the mod team to bring it into compliance.
If they do not edit the post, this does not indicate that you have not broken the rules. It only indicates that they have not edited the post. They retain the ability to do so at any time (including years down the road).
When editing the post, nothing stops them from editing it to be something you object to.
Therefore, it is possible for your words to be altered in a way you would not approve of at any time, even years down the line. You do not have the ability to be sure your words will remain as you wrote them. They have the power, you do not.


The same proof is even more true for omnipotence. Here, check it out:


God is omnipotent. He can do anything at any time.
Failure to exercise that power does not reduce or remove that power.
When you make a choice, God can see what that choice was.
If you make a choice that God does not approve of, he may choose to intervene (he has promised not to do so, but he could change his mind).
If he does not intervene, this does not indicate that he approves of the choice. it only indicates that he has not intervened. He retains the ability to do so at any time (including millenia down the road).
When changing your choice, nothing stops him from changing it to be something you object to.
Therefore, it is possible for your choice to be altered in a way you would not approve of at any time, even millenia down the line. You do not have the ability to be sure your choice will remain as you made it. He has the power, you do not.


As for the argument about limits on free will: Since all we are talking about is the ability to make up your own mind, if there are limits on your ability to do so, we don't really have free will, do we?

[Kalli]

No, it doesn't beg that question at all. So long as no one ever actually prevents you from being able to decide for yourself, it's irrelevant that it *could* be done. You almost might as well say that my freedom to choose whether to get lunch from Zaxby's or Captain D's tomorrow is "false" because you could, though you never would, look up my address and shoot me during the night.

You know, I was 100% with Pedersen in this debate until this point was raised and wasn't addressed.

I would really like to see you address this point, P?

[Pedersen]

I would really like to see you address this point, P?

I'll be happy to, as soon as you can explain to me two things:

1. What is this point? I simply don't see one having been made.
2. How is this point not answered by the proofs I've provided since it was made?

[BroomJockey]

I still see this as coming down to whether it still qualifies as "free will" if there are any possible limits to how far that freedom goes; I think it does

Ah, I see, we're talking actual free will. You're merely talking the appearance of free will. Free will with limits is not free. It's different than freedom of speech, or freedom of the press, or freedom of movement, since it's supposedly divinely granted, whereas the others are given by mortals. Of course anything given by mortals has limits, since mortals are ourselves limited. No wonder you don't agree, you're arguing something else. You're arguing whether the appearance of free will is the same as actual free will.

[Kalli]

I'll be happy to, as soon as you can explain to me two things:

Sure thing, bear in mind that the reason I'm keen for your answer is because I wholeheartedly agree with your argument, so please don't think I'm being nitpicky.

1. What is this point? I simply don't see one having been made.

The point, as I understand it, is that if you submit that free will is undermined by God's ability to change any willful decision by a person, does that not then mean that since anyone can come along and shoot you/steal your car/blow up the local restaurant you were going to go to etc, then free will as you describe it can't even actually exist at all?

(Interestingly, even if what I said there is true, it still points to a critical logic failure in Christianity, doesn't it :P)


2. How is this point not answered by the proofs I've provided since it was made?

Because subsequent proofs provided don't address the question of whether or not just about anything can undermine free will.

[Pedersen]

The point, as I understand it, is that if you submit that free will is undermined by God's ability to change any willful decision by a person, does that not then mean that since anyone can come along and shoot you/steal your car/blow up the local restaurant you were going to go to etc, then free will as you describe it can't even actually exist at all?

Actually, no, it doesn't mean that in the least. If humans have free will (and we've gone through the proofs above that show they do not), then two people can make contradictory choices. The fact that the actions of one person remove the ability of another to follow through on that choice does not negate the ability of the second person to have made a choice.

In other words, to use the original example: If I make a choice as to where I will eat lunch tomorrow, and you kill me before I either (a) complete my choice or (b) manage to eat lunch, that does not remove my ability to have made a choice. It only removes my ability to act on it.

Since God is omnipotent, he actually removes my ability to make a choice.

[Kalli]

Actually, no, it doesn't mean that in the least. <snip>

Since God is omnipotent, he actually removes my ability to make a choice.

Ah I see what you're saying.

To offer my opinion on the subject, I'm with the camp that say omnipotence, omniscience and free will cannot co-exist as we define them.

However, having said this, my opinion and anyone else's for that matter on this subject are more likely than most to be totally incorrect, seeing as omnipotence and omniscience are things that we cannot fathom as humans. Debating the original point of this thread is entirely dependent on the definition of those 3 terms, which are very subjective. How can we universally define something we can't even wrap our heads around?

It's important to also remember that God didn't write the bible. People wrote the bible. It's words should not be taken with as high a regard as they are, and people should stop being so surprised that it contains contradictory rules and some good old-fashioned bullshit.

[Gravekeeper]

Seeing as omnipotence and omniscience are things that we cannot fathom as humans.


They're pretty easy to fathom. It's quantum physics that's hard. -.-

Debating the original point of this thread is entirely dependent on the definition of those 3 terms, which are very subjective.

I don't see them as subjective at all to be honest. Both terms are extremely clear in their meaning. Its people in the thread that are trying to debate the terms to undermine Pederson's argument.



It's important to also remember that God didn't write the bible. People wrote the bible.

Yep, and man has that thing been rewritten, edited and translated to death to fit people's agendas over the centuries.

Fun fact: many Muslims believe the Bible to be a flawed or tainted book because its been altered so much by people.



I <3 this thread but I don't believe in God(tm) or true free will so I feel left out. -.-

[Bright Star]

Kind of makes you wonder why God threw out Adam & Eve from the Garden of Eden for eating the forbidden fruit if he already knew it was going to have happened. Why punish them for doing something you didn't want them to do if you knew ages before that they were going to do it?

[BroomJockey]

Why punish them for doing something you didn't want them to do if you knew ages before that they were going to do it?

Here's what'll really bake your noodle later: God created the snake, too.

[Gravekeeper]

Kind of makes you wonder why God threw out Adam & Eve from the Garden of Eden for eating the forbidden fruit if he already knew it was going to have happened. Why punish them for doing something you didn't want them to do if you knew ages before that they were going to do it?

Easy! None of that actually happened and its just another creation myth. ^^

[Flyndaran]

Free will itself is a rather religious concept. Scientifically, we are products of our environments, biology, and random interactions between them. Saying that there is something outside of those that can affect them but is not part of them is not very rational.

[Kalli]

Easy! None of that actually happened and its just another creation myth. ^^

This.

It's horrible when these debates come up, because they're fantastic for argument, but my my own admission, I'm simply incapable of seeing any point of view other than "It's all bullshit, for fucks sake" as valid. :(

Regarding the subjectivity, GK, I beg to differ. Does free will mean that nobody COULD change your mind, or that nobody WILL change your mind?

[BroomJockey]

Does free will mean that nobody COULD change your mind, or that nobody WILL change your mind?

That's back to "appearance" vs. "actual" free will. If someone can but doesn't, you've the appearance, if no one CAN, that's actual.

[Kalli]

That's back to "appearance" vs. "actual" free will. If someone can but doesn't, you've the appearance, if no one CAN, that's actual.

Is it?

If only an omnipotent being has the ability to change your mind, and that same being (being omnipotent) has the ability to never use that power no matter what, does that not amount to the same thing?

If we're talking about omnipotence, you can't just discount the fact that such a being would have the ability to say with 100% unmitigated certainty that every person's will is free.

This is what I mean by subjectivity, when an omnipotent being is thrown into the equation, everything becomes subjective.

I have mentioned my rotten inability to articulate my meaning before, I hope you're following what I'm saying :S



Cliffnotes: It's just as valid to say that "if an omnipotent being says there is free will, there is" as it is to say "If there is an omnipotent being, free will can't exist".



Having said that of course, I don't even slightly believe in the possibility (let alone existence) of an omnipotent being. This point is academic to me.

[Kimmik]

I see it like this...

God is the author of a create your own adventure world... god knows every out come of every decision. He knows what is what can be and what will be.

How ever for his own amusement he has decided to give us free will. He can see every path that our choices or lack of choices go down.

heck if he wanted to he could just have a bunch of mindless worshiping robots. But instead he gave man free will because he wanted man to be able to make their own calls. Right or wrong...

I see the future as an limitless unknown... there are many paths that exist at the moment a decision has to be made. God can see all of them... he knows all of them but he waits till our choice is made to set a path in stone.

[Pedersen]

If only an omnipotent being has the ability to change your mind, and that same being (being omnipotent) has the ability to never use that power no matter what, does that not amount to the same thing?

Most emphatically it is not the same thing. Let's try a different tactic to explain why omnipotence is the only thing that matters, and even outright refusal to use the power of omnipotence still blocks free will.

I actually am, in real life, a computer programmer. One of the tasks we engage in is writing something called pseudo-code. This is used to describe the steps taken to perform an action. If I were to write the way that omnipotence works and removes free will, it would look something like this:


set going_to_interfere to false # god has promised never to interfere with our choices

function omnipotent_interference(): # The god factor
if going_to_interfere:
return true
else:
return false

function gods_will():
return whatever_god_wants

function evaluate_options():
if not omnipotent_interference():
for each option:
if option_is_best:
return option
else:
return gods_will()

function make_a_choice():
if not omnipotent_interference():
best_choice = evaluate_options()
return best_choice
else:
return gods_will()


Note that, at every single juncture, we have to stop and ask for whether or not omnipotent_interference() is true. This happens even though we have set going_to_interfere to false. The fact that God has chosen never to interfere does not remove the fact that he can change his mind. If going_to_interfere is ever changed for any reason, then the mask of free will is completely shredded.

Now, why does omnipotent_interference() have to be checked at every step along the way? Because, if it's not, then we have a step where God cannot interfere. If he cannot interfere, then he is no longer omnipotent. As such, he must be able to interfere (since, by definition, God is omnipotent). Which means that we can only make the choices that God lets us make.

I hope this example makes it somewhat more clear.

If we're talking about omnipotence, you can't just discount the fact that such a being would have the ability to say with 100% unmitigated certainty that every person's will is free.

Yep, he sure could. And in so doing, he would cease to be omnipotent, since he could no longer do anything. Really, it's not as complex as you make it out to be.

If God is omnipotent, he can do anything. Free will is gone. If God guarantees free will, then he is no longer omnipotent.

Claiming that the words are subjective when they are actually very well defined, though? I'll say this: This is the last post which makes such outrageous claims that I will dignify with a response.

People are now trying to change the meaning of the words, or change what is being debated (cf: "actual free will" vs "apparent free will"), and I'm tired of debating that. If someone wishes to show how an omnipotent being can exist and humans can still have actual free will, go for it. Outside of that, don't expect much from me.

[Gravekeeper]

As I said already, I don't believe the terms are objective at all. They're pretty clear. So I'm with Pederson on this. I don't think I've seen someone logically tackle his argument yet. I've only seen attempts at redefining the factors of the argument to undermine it. Resulting in Pederson having to come up with yet another example to try and get through to them. >.>

[Kalli]

OK, your explanation and programming comparison have me convinced about the definition of omnipotence, Pederson, very well said. You're quite right; I was taking the debate way past where the point was already proven, and complicating it until a hole appeared.

GK, you should know I'm not here to undermine P's argument at all, I genuinely wanted him to argue my points and that he has done. Unnecessarily insinuating that I'm either a jerk or an idiot simply for being on the losing side of a debate is kind of disappointing, coming from you.

[Gravekeeper]

GK, you should know I'm not here to undermine P's argument at all, I genuinely wanted him to argue my points and that he has done. Unnecessarily insinuating that I'm either a jerk or an idiot simply for being on the losing side of a debate is kind of disappointing, coming from you.

Excuse me? I made no such insituations whatsoever and I was speaking about the entire thread in general. If I was referring to you, I would say so.

[Kalli]

If that's the case, then I apologise. It just seemed to me that from

As I said already, I don't believe the terms are subjective at all. They're pretty clear.

As I was the one suggesting the terms were subjective, and

I've only seen attempts at redefining the factors of the argument to undermine it. Resulting in Pederson having to come up with yet another example to try and get through to them. >.>

As this was right below Pederson's post making an example to get his point through to me, pretty much pointed to you talking to me.

[Pedersen]

Sorry, Kimmik, I didn't see your post until now.

God is the author of a create your own adventure world... god knows every out come of every decision. He knows what is what can be and what will be.

You're discussing omniscience, which has already been shown to be irrelevant. See this post (http://www.fratching.com/showpost.php?p=33273&postcount=84), this post (http://www.fratching.com/showpost.php?p=32748&postcount=68), and this post (http://www.fratching.com/showpost.php?p=32359&postcount=49).

Free will itself is a rather religious concept. Scientifically, we are products of our environments, biology, and random interactions between them. Saying that there is something outside of those that can affect them but is not part of them is not very rational.

Flyn, we've got the non-monotheistic version of the debate over here (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=706). Go for it.

[Gravekeeper]

If that's the case, then I apologise. It just seemed to me that from

As I was the one suggesting the terms were subjective, and

As this was right below Pederson's post making an example to get his point through to me, pretty much pointed to you talking to me.

Everyone is basically arguing them subjectively and Pederson is on what, page 9 of his examples? heh. I wasn't insinuating anything, just summing up the thread.

Believe me if I think someone's an idiot, I have a variety of creative terms prepared to elaborate my point <cough>

[Kalli]

Everyone is basically arguing them subjectively and Pederson is on what, page 9 of his examples?

Yeah I know, it's pretty retarded, even I was thinking "my god, how many ways does he have to explain it?" Until I got overstimulated and needed my own personal explanation as well :rolleyes: