God's omnisience vs freedom

daithiocondun

Does God's omniscience not degrade the freedom of humanity? Surely if God's knows what you will eat for breakfast tomorrow, then you are not free to choose.

If God knows that I will shoot someone tomorrow, then I am surely not therefore free not to kill someone.

And if I am entirely free to choose not to pull the trigger or not while I stand and point the gun... then surely God does not know what I will do. For if he knows then I am not free, and if I am free, he cannot know.

Opinions appreciated.

Zombrex

Most Atheists, including myself, will probably agree with that logic

Christians not so much :pac:

From discussing this before the biggest issue that needs to be tied down is the concept of time. What does it mean for God to know you will do something before you do it.

Memnoch

daithiocondun wrote: »

Does God's omniscience not degrade the freedom of humanity? Surely if God's knows what you will eat for breakfast tomorrow, then you are not free to choose.

If God knows that I will shoot someone tomorrow, then I am surely not therefore free not to kill someone.

And if I am entirely free to choose not to pull the trigger or not while I stand and point the gun... then surely God does not know what I will do. For if he knows then I am not free, and if I am free, he cannot know.

Opinions appreciated.

I think Christians argue that of course god knows, but he lets you make your own choices, which is the concept of religious free will, and in itself does not seem paradoxical.

daithiocondun

Memnoch wrote: »

I think Christians argue that of course god knows, but he lets you make your own choices, which is the concept of religious free will, and in itself does not seem paradoxical.

Ok... you have effectively said nothing there.

Morbert

This topic has been raised before and it is generally concluded that it does not interfere with free will IF omniscience excludes counterfactuals.

Ironically, it is the rejection of molinism that resolves the issue.

wolfsbane

daithiocondun wrote: »

Does God's omniscience not degrade the freedom of humanity? Surely if God's knows what you will eat for breakfast tomorrow, then you are not free to choose.

If God knows that I will shoot someone tomorrow, then I am surely not therefore free not to kill someone.

And if I am entirely free to choose not to pull the trigger or not while I stand and point the gun... then surely God does not know what I will do. For if he knows then I am not free, and if I am free, he cannot know.

Opinions appreciated.

Man is normally permitted to think as he pleases, but frequently not permitted to act as he pleases. God often prevents man's determined actions - the individual experiences frustration. At times God even causes him to think in a particular way, and he then carries out what he thinks was entirely his own designs.

But in the moral sphere, where we normally consider free-will, man is free to choose according to his own nature. God does not make him choose evil, he chooses it because his nature is corrupt. For an individual to choose to repent and trust in God, his nature must be changed. That is where the confusion about free-will and God's sovereignty arises.

God never forces a man to become a Christian. One never repents and believes against one's will. How is the natural antagonism of sinful man overcome? God changes his nature - gives him a new heart, to use the Biblical expression. Then that new nature causes his will to choose to love and obey God.

The idea that man is absolutely free to choose or reject God is not Biblical. No one can come to God without God causing it. No one can reject him, if God decides to change his nature. Our natures determine our freely given choices.

krudler

wolfsbane wrote: »

Man is normally permitted to think as he pleases, but frequently not permitted to act as he pleases. God often prevents man's determined actions - the individual experiences frustration. At times God even causes him to think in a particular way, and he then carries out what he thinks was entirely his own designs.

But in the moral sphere, where we normally consider free-will, man is free to choose according to his own nature. God does not make him choose evil, he chooses it because his nature is corrupt. For an individual to choose to repent and trust in God, his nature must be changed. That is where the confusion about free-will and God's sovereignty arises.

God never forces a man to become a Christian. One never repents and believes against one's will. How is the natural antagonism of sinful man overcome? God changes his nature - gives him a new heart, to use the Biblical expression. Then that new nature causes his will to choose to love and obey God.

The idea that man is absolutely free to choose or reject God is not Biblical. No one can come to God without God causing it. No one can reject him, if God decides to change his nature. Our natures determine our freely given choices.

Thats one mass of contradictions you just wrote there, so god doesnt make us christian but he does change our nature when he feels like it? so why not make us all christians to begin with? look at all the worlds problems that would be solved without this whole "my god is better than your god" attitude that the fundamentalists have?

This is the ultimate christian sidestep, god is responsible for everything, but not really. he made us in his image, but only some of us, the rest are just bastards inherently, unless he step in and makes them see the light, which he could have avoided by making someone good in the first place. If he gives us free will then hes not omnipotent, if he is omnipotent then we have no free will as peoples actions are all part of his plan for us.

PDN

krudler wrote: »

If he gives us free will then hes not omnipotent, if he is omnipotent then we have no free will as peoples actions are all part of his plan for us.

I'm ignoring the rest of your post since you're directing it at Wolfsbane's Calvinism - a position that I reject too.

However, here you are committing a basic logical error. You are defining 'omnipotent' to make it mean something very different to what it means in Christian theology. Therefore your use of the term in this forum is only going to cause confusion and will generate more heat than light.

Omnipotence, as used in Christian theology and philosophy, means that God is able to do anything - not that He does do anything.

So, an omnipotent God is able to create a cow with six heads. But the fact that He chooses not to do so is not a denial of His omnipotence.

Similarly, an omnipotent God is able to create mankind in a way that man always does what God has willed. But the fact that He chooses not to exercise this power, and does in fact give us free will, in no denies His omnipotence.

So, Krudler, if you want to discuss 'omnipotence' in the Christianity forum I am suggesting that you use the word in accordance with its accepted definition in Christian theology and philosophy. Otherwise we descend into a humpty dumpty world where words have no meaning whatsoever except inasmuch as each poster decides that they mean whathever they feel like.

Fanny Cradock

I would add, and I hope you agree, PDN, that while God can do anything, he can only do what is logically possible. So no squared circles or married bachelors then.

Slav

daithiocondun wrote: »

Does God's omniscience not degrade the freedom of humanity? Surely if God's knows what you will eat for breakfast tomorrow, then you are not free to choose.

If God knows that I will shoot someone tomorrow, then I am surely not therefore free not to kill someone.

And if I am entirely free to choose not to pull the trigger or not while I stand and point the gun... then surely God does not know what I will do. For if he knows then I am not free, and if I am free, he cannot know.

Opinions appreciated.

It would be very helpful if you could explain (preferably mathematically) why would it be the knowledge of an event that determines it and not the other way round: the event determines the knowledge. Does it violate causality or imply some other contradiction?

Previous thread on this ended up in disagreement on metaphysical matters if I remember correctly. Maybe this time we'll be more lucky if we take a slightly different approach and start with simple physics (just my guess)...

homer911

This has been explained by some Theologians as God existing outside of time - that means that the past present and future can be viewed from any perspective, so while God might know what we are going to eat for breakfast tomorrow, its not that he can see into the future, its that for him it has already happened.

So yes, we do have freewill, but God already knows the outcome of our decisions

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would add, and I hope you agree, PDN, that while God can do anything, he can only do what is logically possible. So no squared circles or married bachelors then.

Indeed, and no creating of rocks so heavy that God Himself cannot lift them.

Zombrex

homer911 wrote: »

This has been explained by some Theologians as God existing outside of time - that means that the past present and future can be viewed from any perspective, so while God might know what we are going to eat for breakfast tomorrow, its not that he can see into the future, its that for him it has already happened.

So yes, we do have freewill, but God already knows the outcome of our decisions

That though implies we don't actually have free will.

For free will to exist requires that at any time line point of a decision there exists two or more possible futures that are decided by the action of the decision. If you cheat on your wife there is a future where you have done that, if you don't that is the future.

If God exists outside of time and sees all then there is only one time line, one past present and future, the one God sees it all as a single thing. Because God has always existed and will aways exist this is true also of the time line. There is one time line, there was always one time line and there will only ever be one time line.

Any decision made at a point in time cannot determine which path time takes because there is only one path.

Otherwise the future would be unknown until you make your decision. But if God is omniscient there is no unknown.

Fanny Cradock

People like Greg Boyd are exploring the relatively unpopular realm of open theism - God anticipates the future rather than him knowing it absolutely. Don Carson offers a critique here.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

That though implies we don't actually have free will.

For free will to exist requires that at any time line point of a decision there exists two or more possible futures that are decided by the action of the decision. If you cheat on your wife there is a future where you have done that, if you don't that is the future.

If God exists outside of time and sees all then there is only one time line, one past present and future, the one God sees it all as a single thing. Because God has always existed and will aways exist this is true also of the time line. There is one time line, there was always one time line and there will only ever be one time line.

Any decision made at a point in time cannot determine which path time takes because there is only one path.

Otherwise the future would be unknown until you make your decision. But if God is omniscient there is no unknown.

Here we go arguing in circles again.

There is only one path for you in the timeline because you choose that path. That remains true irrespective of the point from which God views the timeline and sees your choice.

The key issue is this. Is your choice dependent upon what God sees, or is what God sees dependent upon your choice?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Here we go arguing in circles again.

Er, then don't argue with me. :rolleyes:

PDN wrote: »

There is only one path for you in the timeline because you choose that path.

If I choose that path then there isn't only one path for me, there is an infinite number of paths for me, decided by my action in the present.

I may go to Burger King for lunch, or I may got to O'Briens. Which outcome happens is based on my decision.

Now imagine that for all of eternity, past present and future, it is known that I went to Burger King. It is known that I go to Burger King when I'm thinking "Maybe O'Briens"

In my little local time line it gets to the point where I decide what to do. And I decide to go to O'Briens. Except I can't because for all of eternity I went to Burger King.

PDN wrote: »

That remains true irrespective of the point from which God views the timeline and sees your choice.

It does, but as I seem to remember already explaining to you, that isn't relevant.

You are ignoring what is necessary for me to make a choice, ie it must be necessary that the possible futures are not set yet.

If they are set then there is no choice.

PDN wrote: »

The key issue is this. Is your choice dependent upon what God sees, or is what God sees dependent upon your choice?

Your choice is dependent on what God has already seen.

Say it is not, say we have free will.

I come to a decision. The future at this point is not set yet. It can be A or B.

I notice God is watching quite intensively to see what I do because HE DOESN'T KNOW YET. I decide A. God goes bravo, good choice. At this point God now knows what I did. All the possible futures collapse into just one which has been selected by me to be the present.

Now lets run that again yet with an omniscient God.

I come to a decision. I see God above me smiling because he knows what I will do, I will choose A. From my perspective because I cannot see beyond this present moment I think the choice is between A or B, but really it isn't. The choice is A. I then choose A.

There are no set of possible futures there is just A. All I have done is move from one point on the same time line to another point on the same time line.

It is like a short sighted person on a train. From there position they cannot see further along the track (they see only the present, where they are now). They think at the next turn the train can either turn left or it can turn right because they cannot see the turn coming up. But the train driver has perfect vision. He can see the whole track in front of him and he can see that the turn is left. The train cannot turn right, it will turn left. That is known to him but not known to the short sighted person who still thinks there is a possibility that the train can either turn left or turn right at the next turn.

We are short sighted as to the future, God is not. We cannot see beyond our present moment, God can. We believe we have a set of possible outcomes, God knows we don't. We know more have free will than the train can decide to turn right.

If there is only one possible result or outcome then choice is an illusion, just like the short sighted man's idea that the train can turn left or right is an illusion.

BTW I'm writing this for others to read. I've had this discussion with you so many times and you just keep coming up with oxymoronic solutions that I am under no illusions that I'm going to convince you of anything.

Twin-go

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would add, and I hope you agree, PDN, that while God can do anything, he can only do what is logically possible. So no squared circles or married bachelors then.

Can you please expand on the point above in bold. What do you consider Logically possible?

Are the following "logically possible"?

Talking Snakes?
All the speices of animals on earth fitting into one boat?
Parting the Red Sea?
Turning people into a pilar of salt?
Talking to a man via a burning bush?
Virgin Birth?
Walking on Water?
Raising the Dead?
Dying of returning to life 3 days later?

Fanny Cradock

Twin-go wrote: »

Can you please expand on the point above in bold. What do you consider Logically possible?

Are the following "logically possible"?

Talking Snakes?
All the speices of animals on earth fitting into one boat?
Parting the Red Sea?
Turning people into a pilar of salt?
Talking to a man via a burning bush?
Virgin Birth?
Walking on Water?
Raising the Dead?
Dying of returning to life 3 days later?

You don't believe in miracles. I get it. Did you have another point?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Er, then don't argue with me. :rolleyes:

And let your dogmatic assertions stand uncorrected?

If I choose that path then there isn't only one path for me, there is an infinite number of paths for me, decided by my action in the present.

I may go to Burger King for lunch, or I may got to O'Briens. Which outcome happens is based on my decision.

It depends when I look at your choice. If I view your choice before you make it, then there are many paths you might take, because as finite beings, we both only experience time as a unidirectional straight line. However, if I view your choices after you have made them, then there is only one choice left because you can't go back in time and unmake that decision.

However, even though we look back after the event and see that you did indeed choose Burger King, the fact that we see that to be the only course of action you took does not lessen the free will you had to make that choice.

Now imagine that for all of eternity, past present and future, I went to Burger King.

In my little local time line it gets to the point where I decide what to do. And I decide to go to O'Briens. Except I can't because for all of eternity I went to Burger King.

Why on earth should I try to imagine something that makes no sense in the first place?

You went to Burger King, you didn't go to O'Briens because you chose not to.

It does, but as I seem to remember already explaining to you, that isn't relevant.

That's the problem. You didn't explain it. You made assertions without any convincing logic to back them up. Your atheist friends backed you up, the Christian posters kept asking for you to demonstrate your assertions, and the atheists claimed that we were blind because we couldn't see any explanation.

You are ignoring what is necessary for me to make a choice, ie it must be necessary that the possible futures are not set yet.

If they are set then there is no choice.

And you are ignoring the point that God's knowledge is contingent upon your choice. Therefore your choice is not set. You make your choice freely and God sees your choice.

Your argument only holds true if God is a finite Being limited to viewing time in a straight unidirectional line.

I do hope we're not going to go through all that again.

Your choice is dependent on what God has already seen.

No, because you are making God subject to past or future tenses as we understand them from our limited perspective on a unidirectional straight line.

With God there is no 'before' or 'after' - such uses of language concerning Him are only accomodations to our very limited perspective. God is always in the present. He sees what happened at the Big Bang as a present event. He sees what I am doing now as a present event. And He sees what I will do tomorrow as a present event (the changes in tense in the verbs are all from my perspective). An Eternal Being is always in the Present, and He sees the choices you freely make - even if you can't see them yet.

Of course you don't like it or agree with it, since as an atheist you reject the concept of an Eternal being anyway, but there is no contradiction between omniscience and free will. You failed to demonstrate it in page after page of a previous discussion, and i see no sign of you bringing anything new to the table this time.

So do you really want to waste all of our time again?

Zombrex

Twin-go wrote: »

Can you please expand on the point above in bold. What do you consider Logically possible?

Are the following "logically possible"?

Talking Snakes?
All the speices of animals on earth fitting into one boat?
Parting the Red Sea?
Turning people into a pilar of salt?
Talking to a man via a burning bush?
Virgin Birth?
Walking on Water?
Raising the Dead?
Dying of returning to life 3 days later?

All those things are nomological impossibilities, not logical impossibilties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_possibility

Twin-go

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You don't believe in miracles. I get it. Did you have another point?

I never mentioned miracles.
I asked what is logically possible for an omnipotent God to do? Based on the Dicitionary definition of Omnipotent, he would be able to do all the things I mentioned. But you are saying there is a different meaning of the word in theiology? What can he do? What can't he do? An can it really be clamed that he is "An All Powerful and Ever Living God"?

antiskeptic

Twin-go wrote: »

I never mentioned miracles.
I asked what is logically possible for an omnipotent God to do? Based on the Dicitionary definition of Omnipotent, he would be able to do all the things I mentioned.

I gather there is no logical problem with a cow jumping over the moon (given sufficient evolutionary development, presumably). Which means there shouldn't be a logical problem with God doing the things you say (such as enabling a talking snake)

PDN

Twin-go wrote: »

I never mentioned miracles.
I asked what is logically possible for an omnipotent God to do? Based on the Dicitionary definition of Omnipotent, he would be able to do all the things I mentioned. But you are saying there is a different meaning of the word in theiology? What can he do? What can't he do? An can it really be clamed that he is "An All Powerful and Ever Living God"?

There are certain things that are intrinsically impossible because they are self-contradictory - creating a square circle or a married bachelor are examples.

Then there are things that may seem unlikely to you, but are certainly logically possible if one allows for the existence of God. All the stuff you mentioned falls into the second category rather than the first.

Fanny Cradock

Twin-go wrote: »

I never mentioned miracles.
I asked what is logically possible for an omnipotent God to do? Based on the Dicitionary definition of Omnipotent, he would be able to do all the things I mentioned. But you are saying there is a different meaning of the word in theiology? What can he do? What can't he do? An can it really be clamed that he is "An All Powerful and Ever Living God"?

If you can't see the conceptual difference between God deciding to the natural order - name any suitable miracle that you can think of - and God doing something that is logically inconsistent - creating square circles etc. - then I don't think I can answer your questions.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

And let your dogmatic assertions stand uncorrected?

Ok then don't complain about going in circles if you feel compelled to reply to me, thus going in circles :rolleyes:

PDN wrote: »

An Eternal Being is always in the Present, and He sees the choices you freely make - even if you can't see them yet.

You keep saying that over and over without seeing the logical contradiction.

You cannot choose something if there is only one outcome. The train does not choose to go left simply because the short sighted man thinks it can to left or right. It goes left because it can't do anything else because the track ahead of it is already known. The possibility of going left or right, as viewed from the short sighted man's perspective, is not actually a possibility at all.

Equally the idea that the train has "chosen" to go left in the future but the train driver knows now in the present what choice the train will make is ridiculous. There is not choice. It is left all the way.

God as an eternal being sees the future as you see the past, not a set of possible futures but as one single future. He does not see you chose what to have lunch tomorrow. He just sees you have lunch. The lunch you were always going to have. There is now "Umm, what will I have for lunch". There is just your lunch. It was always your lunch it will always be your lunch.

And you yesterday can no more choose not to have what you had for lunch yesterday than you can choose in the present to do something God has already seen you do.

Saying it over and over and over doesn't make you right PDN. :rolleyes:

You go on and on about how I don't understand an eternal being and then apply paradoxical temporal logic to an eternal being. We are the short sighted man in the train. Our view of what may happen is clouded by us not being able to see the future. We have no such issue with the past. And God has not such issue with the future. You are suggesting that God is limited by your choice, limited in knowing what you will do as if you have a set of outcomes and you pick the one you pick. You limit God and then complain I'm doing that.

Silliness of the highest order.

Twin-go

PDN wrote: »

There are certain things that are intrinsically impossible because they are self-contradictory - creating a square circle or a married bachelor are examples.

Then there are things that may seem unlikely to you, but are certainly logically possible if one allows for the existence of God. All the stuff you mentioned falls into the second category rather than the first.

Thank you. Now we are getting somewhere.
So it is logically possible for God to cure cancer, end hunger, stop wars, bring peace to the world and unite "his" people in one "true" religion? Right?

But he does not to do so? Why?

Why is it when a person is pulled from the rubble of a building a week after an earthquake it gods miricale but surley based on this logic the earthquake was gods doing too?

He seems to give with one hand and take with the other.

It says that we must love him a fear him, praise him and honour him. Sounds like a dictatorship to me.

coffee_cake

Wicknight wrote: »

Your choice is dependent on what God has already seen.


I come to a decision. I see God above me smiling because he knows what I will do, I will choose A. From my perspective because I cannot see beyond this present moment I think the choice is between A or B, but really it isn't. The choice is A. I then choose A.

There are no set of possible futures there is just A. All I have done is move from one point on the same time line to another point on the same time line.
.

I can't agree here at all wick. I think it's a lot more like getting to see a film premiere before everyone else, or maybe watching a repeat of a tv show you've seen before. You know what's going to happen but that never affected anyone making the show or anyone afterwards. In fact it's even looser than that as god is supposedly outside time, so enforcing this linear setup and collapsing all other possibilities doesn't wash with me.

I think however the combination of omnipotence and setting the universe in motion combined with omniscience, is more likely to suggest a lack of free will. Assuming infinite knowledge of every possible future - by existing outside time so there is no 'future' anyway for this god - and setting things up this way - i don't know, there's at least some non-choice going on there. Even standing back and saying "right i'm not interfering from here on" doesn't make sense as all the starting conditions are set and the outcomes are known.

bnt

Which brings us back to the "problem of evil" again, in my opinion. It happens, and the god doesn't do anything about it, which raises serious questions about the god and its motives. So we have various people, at various times, telling us about the god's motives ("free will" and so on), but nothing "from the horse's mouth". Another possibility is that the god can see everything, but doesn't understand it. ("Evil? Whussat?"). This is all getting rather complicated - surely there's a simpler way? :cool:

Twin-go

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If you can't see the conceptual difference between God deciding to the natural order - name any suitable miracle that you can think of - and God doing something that is logically inconsistent - creating square circles etc. - then I don't think I can answer your questions.

So you are saying God created the rules in the first place and is now bound by those rules? He didn't leave himself a get out clause? Was this an oversite? And surely if he created the rules he can break the rules?

Zombrex

bluewolf wrote: »

I can't agree here at all wick. I think it's a lot more like getting to see a film premiere before everyone else, or maybe watching a repeat of a tv show you've seen before. You know what's going to happen but that never affected anyone making the show or anyone afterwards.

It isn't about physically effecting anyone.

If you see Brad Pitt do something in a movie the next time you see the movie can he do something else? In frame 564 does Brad Pitt have a choice about what happens next in the film?

Of course he can't because what he did is fixed, it is known and recorded. Every time you watch the movie he does the same thing because you know what he does. There is no choice involved.

Choice cannot exist without a set greater than 1 of possible futures, an unknown outcome. Brad chose what he did at the time of filming because to everyone in the universe the future was unknown. Brad selected through is decisions and action an outcome and that became the outcome.

Now imagine that we are all actually in the film. The next frame is actually already known. It appears to us in the current frame like Brad is making a "choice" to do something. But he isn't really because the next frame is fixed. He is doing what he always did/does/will do

To God, as an omniscient being, our universe is just like a film we have already seen. All is known. You run it once Brad makes that "decision". You run it again, he makes the same decision.

There is no choice in the film. Brad is not choosing the next frame. It looks like he is, it looks like he is thinking "Ah, I'll do this" but it is just an illusion.

To have choice you have to step out of the film to where the next frame is not known by anyone. You have to go back to filming when no one knew what the next frame was going to be.

Because God is eternal this is not an option for us. There is no "filming" because there was never a point when God didn't know everything. There is no point where the next frame was an unknown quantity. The film we are on has always existed. The next frame has always been known.

Fanny Cradock

Twin-go wrote: »

Thank you. Now we are getting somewhere.
So it is logically possible for God to cure cancer, end hunger, stop wars, bring peace to the world and unite "his" people in one "true" religion? Right?

But he does not to do so? Why?

Why is it when a person is pulled from the rubble of a building a week after an earthquake it gods miricale but surley based on this logic the earthquake was gods doing too?

He seems to give with one hand and take with the other.

It says that we must love him a fear him, praise him and honour him. Sounds like a dictatorship to me.

This is really a separate issue to the thread, no? Unless you are Pat Robertson, then most Christians don't believe that Haiti was an act of God, rather it was a brute fact of nature. The God you describe - the bully dictator - is not one I recognise, and I think any response to this will lead is into the realm of theodicy. Therefore it's not a discussion for this thread.