another thread raised a question about god's omniscience and free will... i've thought through this quite thoroughly as a kid, i want to hear your opinions.

if any of you find this to be too vague or dont know where im getting at, dont answer

If god knows everything, then there is no such thing as freewill; this, however, does not stop believers in an omniscient god from believing the exact opposite.

</thread>

well... not neccessarily, knowing is not controlling... if i know that my brother would prefer to eat an orange than an apple, and it turns out that he chooses an orange rather than an apple, have i removed his free will?

and this thread isnt limited to only god... you can view it as determinism vs freewill

He doesn't know you would prefer, he knows you will. If he knows every possible action you can take and the action you do take before you take before you take it, then you have no free will. If god knows everything, past, future, and present, then he knows our actions long before we do them.

The Bible actually agrees with this, believe it or not. The Bible makes it clear that everything we do, good or evil, is all due to the will of God (2 Thess. 2:11-12; Rom. 9:19-21; Rom. 9:18).

If people are evil, it is because God has chosen for them to be evil (Rom. 1:24-28) and caused them to disobey him (Rom. 11:32). If they do not understand God's message, it is because he has made them dull (Rom. 11:8) and caused them to be stubborn (Rom. 9:18). God prevents the gospels from being preached in certain areas (Act, 16:6-7) and he fixes long before it will happen a person will be born and when he or she will die (Act, 17:26). Those who were going to be saved were chosen by God before the beginning of time (II Tim. 1:9). If a person has faith and is thereby saved, his faith comes from God, and is not from any effort or decision on his part (Eph. 2:9-10). Now one may ask 'If we can only do what God predetermines us to do, how can he hold us responsible for our actions?' The Bible has an answer to this question.

But one of you will say to me: 'If this is so, how can God find fault with anyone? For who can resit God's will?' But who are you, my friend, to answer God back? A clay pot does not ask the man who made it: 'Why did you make me like this?' After all, the man who makes the pot has the right to use the clay as he wishes, and to make two pots from one lump of clay, one for special occasions and one for ordinary use. And the same is true of what God has done. (Rom. 9:19-22)

So as you can see, this makes nonsense of trying to avoid evil and shows God to be a complete bastard who creates men to suffer and murder and burn in hell for eternity.

^^Ditto. If god knows what you will DO ahead of time, then there is no free will. You action is already known before you do it and thus you have no choice. If god is omnicient then he must know what you will DO ahead of time. Thus, no free will.

Determinism and free will also exclude each other.

Many would argue that God's knowledge does not necessarily negate free-will.

For example:

I am confronted with a choice. Option A; or Option B. I can only choose one.

God knows that I will ultimately choose Option A. Option B is effectively non-existent. However, does this necessarily mean that I was never truly free to choose B?

On the one hand, God knew full well that I would choose A. However, for whatever reason, I also came to the conclusion that Option A was my best course of action. Since my decision was in no way tainted by any form of Godly knowledge, I was free to come to whichever conclusion I felt was best.

There are two possible outcomes that I can think of at this moment.

1. God is responsible, directly or indirectly, for every choice that we make. Either he made me choose A, or he intricately shaped all external influences in my life which ultimately led to my decision to go with A. In which case, free-will is essentially non-existent.

2. God is aware of my decision, yet played no active role in forming that outcome. In this case, free-will and omniscience can possibly coexist. However, how could God have played no role? In the commonly accepted Judeo-Christian view of God (which is what we're discussing, I'd imagine) God is responsible for anything and everything.

So, I suppose that free-will cannot really exist along with omniscience unless there is absolutely no interference on God's part, other than that of an observer. Afterall, coming to the same conclusion that God had foreseen doesn't change the fact that I alone would have come to that conclusion.

Yeah... rambling out loud here.

God already knew far before you made that decision, and he already knew which decision you were going to make. It's set in stone, dude. If God knows all, then you have no free will.

once again i'd like to say this discussion is not bound only to god, but determinism or any type of pre-destination.

im agnostic, just playing with this idea - assuming god exists and he is omniscient, in his infinite mind he has seen time in its entirety an infinite number of times within an infinitely small timeframe such that any merit to our existence is a joke.

that pretty much kills free will.

but suppose god DOES love us and he decides to let us choose our path, what can he possibly impliment which allows us free will? cmon, im sure the christians around here has something to say.

Twitch:

I'm just toying with some ideas.

If God could truly play the role of an observer, and that role alone, then how does that ultimately effect your choices in life? He may be aware of the outcome, but if he truly has absolutely no influence on your decision, then the decision is entirely up to you.

Making a choice that coincides with God's awareness does not necessarily destroy your ability to choose freely. That is only the case if he has somehow altered the outcome to conform to his will.

This probably conflicts with statements I've made in other discussions. I'm just trying to take a look at a different perspective here.

If I went insane and thought I could fly like a bird, yet chose not to actually fly, would I be exercising my free will by not flying? No. Flying is not an option even if I believe it is. I simply cannot choose to fly, thus my will in contrained.

So if god already knows what I will do then I cannot do otherwise. I have no choice. Just like how flying is not a choice even if I believe it is.

Umm, I fail to see how the deranged notions of a crazy person apply to the free-will which we exercise in reality on a daily basis.

I can choose whether or not I go in to work tomorrow. Both options exist in reality. If God has no influence on my decision, then I am free to choose either one.

You are ignoring my argument. You are ignoring all the other factors that go into every decision that we make. If all of the events, every last detail of my life, shape who I am and the decisions that I make, then God's knowledge of my choices does not truly matter (assuming that he is nothing other than an observer). My life, the culmination of everything that makes me who I am would have made the decision for me. God may have known what would come about, but I still would have made the call.

In this sense, perhaps it still boils down to the non-existence of free-will, however God's knowledge would not be to blame.

Please explain to me how an Omniscient Observer (key word) would have any influence on the actions of that which it observes.

Yes, but if God knew beforehand, then it was already mapped out and you really had no options; options is nothing but an illusion in a world controlled by an all-knowing God who created everything, knowing what was going to happen to it beforehand.

quote:Originally posted by UnknownVeritas:

Umm, I fail to see how the deranged notions of a crazy person apply to the free-will which we exercise in reality on a daily basis.

I can choose whether or not I go in to work tomorrow. Both options exist in reality. If God has no influence on my decision, then I am free to choose either one.

No, you cant choose because god already knows what you will do. You may think you have a choice, but you dont. Just like with the crazy guy with flying. The crazy mans belief of the choice to fly contradicts physics, your beliefs of choice in general contradict omnicient knowledge.

quote:You are ignoring my argument. You are ignoring all the other factors that go into every decision that we make. If all of the events, every last detail of my life, shape who I am and the decisions that I make, then God's knowledge of my choices does not truly matter (assuming that he is nothing other than an observer). My life, the culmination of everything that makes me who I am would have made the decision for me. God may have known what would come about, but I still would have made the call.

How would you have made the call if there is no way an alternative could have occured? You think you had a choice but you did not. Just liek the crazy man who "chose" not to fly.

quote:In this sense, perhaps it still boils down to the non-existence of free-will, however God's knowledge would not be to blame.

Please explain to me how an Omniscient Observer (key word) would have any influence on the actions of that which it observes.

He doesn't. However, whether or not god is influencing you is irrelevant in this case. The fact the such knowledge of the future (omnicient knowledge) exists means that free will does not.

Arrrg, I know.

I'm trying to see this from the perspective of God being absolutely nothing more than an observer. If he chose to have no control over the events taking place in the world as we know it, then his knowledge of the outcome would have no bearing on our decisions.

Maybe that's impossible anyway. Ha, it's been a long day and I'm running out of ideas to toss out.

quote:Originally posted by UnknownVeritas:

I'm trying to see this from the perspective of God being absolutely nothing more than an observer. If he chose to have no control over the events taking place in the world as we know it, then his knowledge of the outcome would have no bearing on our decisions.

What you are trying to do was refuted in the post above you. It does not matter if God is controlling you or merely observing you, he still knows the outcome beforehand and therefore there is only one outcome, and therefore there is only one option, and therefore there is no freewill.

Real PUA:

"How would you have made the call if there is no way an alternative could have occured?"

- The point I was trying to make was that we would have negated the other option on our own. It's not that it was a toss up until the final moment. Everything about us shapes our decisions. In a sense, I suppose, having two options doesn't really matter to begin with, since our experiences in life would shape the outcome anyway. Which is exactly why I said that perhaps it boils down to the destruction of free-will, after all.

Twitch:

Maybe it is impossible for them to coexist. If anyone else has any 'bright' ideas, speak up. I'm tired of playing Devil's Advocate.

Yes, but how do you know we would have taken those options if we had freewill? If we had freewill, time would not be fixed and therefore things could turn out very differently.

quote:Originally posted by UnknownVeritas:

2. God is aware of my decision, yet played no active role in forming that outcome. In this case, free-will and omniscience can possibly coexist. However, how could God have played no role? In the commonly accepted Judeo-Christian view of God (which is what we're discussing, I'd imagine) God is responsible for anything and everything.

So, I suppose that free-will cannot really exist along with omniscience unless there is absolutely no interference on God's part, other than that of an observer. Afterall, coming to the same conclusion that God had foreseen doesn't change the fact that I alone would have come to that conclusion.



That's basically the belief of a theistic Evolutionist. God created the universe and permitted it to evolve. He doesn't interfere with daily life. I was happy to learn this was a growing belief amongst Catholics.

quote:Originally posted by Twitch_67:

What you are trying to do was refuted in the post above you. It does not matter if God is controlling you or merely observing you, he still knows the outcome beforehand and therefore there is only one outcome, and therefore there is only one option, and therefore there is no freewill.

There is only one outcome whether or not an all knowing being exists, so your conclusion that that means there is only one option is flawed.

For the record, I don't believe that free will exists, but if I believed it did, proof of the existence of an all knowing being would not change my mind.

The most common flawed argument I hear on this is the following:

If God knows you will choose choice A tomorrow, you no longer have the freedom to choose choice B, therefore there is no free will.

It's not that you don't have the freedom to choose B, it's just that if you do, God's decision of what you would choose would be different. An all knowing being seeing the future does not affect free will.

I've gone in circles arguing this before, so I'll state my opinion on this once and won't argue it further.

But if God knows every single possible choice and which one you choose before you choose it, then it is set in stone before you make the choice, therefore negating freewill.

quote:It's not that you don't have the freedom to choose B, it's just that if you do, God's decision of what you would choose would be different.

God's decision? Not my decision? That doesn't sound like freewill to me.

Twitch:

In the end, there is only one path that can ultimately be chosen (Well, that we are aware of).

Either knowledge exists of the outcome, negating the other potential option, or our past experiences essentially make the decision for us. Either way, I don't see much in the way of free-will.

It's getting late. I think I've about had my fill of rambling on Totse. I'll check back tomorrow.

quote:Originally posted by UnknownVeritas:

past experiences essentially make the decision for us. Either way, I don't see much in the way of free-will.

I disagree. Our past decisions were once present decisions. Our past decisions fit us in our present situation, where we have the freewill to choose from a number of alternatives(one of which is to act or not to act based on past decisions), which will then lead us to another present moment.





[This message has been edited by Twitch_67 (edited 10-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Twitch_67:

I disagree. Our past decisions were once present decisions.

It doesn't matter. From the moment we're born, we have no choice in the brain we're give, and the environment we're in. Every decision you make after that is based only on the brain nature handed you, present environment and past experiences. Free will is an illusion.

I said past experiences. Everything we have encountered in our lives. There are plenty of things happening to us on a daily basis that we have absolutely no control over, yet all these things help to shape who we are. If external influences change us regularly, then they also change our future decisions.

quote:Originally posted by UnknownVeritas:

I said past experiences. Everything we have encountered in our lives. There are plenty of things happening to us on a daily basis that we have absolutely no control over, yet all these things help to shape who we are. If external influences change us regularly, then they also change our future decisions.

I am well aware that we do not have total control, so I guess freewill isn't the best description, but I disagree that it is totally out of our control. We still have the ability to make decisions based on our situation and what is affecting us.

If I am honest, I find both sides, determinism and freewill, to be far too extreme and to bring a little realism into it, a Hegelian dialectic is needed. I think that we make decisions, but that there are some things totally out of our control, but it is those choices that define us.

[This message has been edited by Twitch_67 (edited 10-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Twitch_67:

He doesn't know you would prefer, he knows you will. If he knows every possible action you can take and the action you do take before you take before you take it, then you have no free will. If god knows everything, past, future, and present, then he knows our actions long before we do them.

The Bible actually agrees with this, believe it or not. The Bible makes it clear that everything we do, good or evil, is all due to the will of God (2 Thess. 2:11-12; Rom. 9:19-21; Rom. 9:18).

If people are evil, it is because God has chosen for them to be evil (Rom. 1:24-28) and caused them to disobey him (Rom. 11:32). If they do not understand God's message, it is because he has made them dull (Rom. 11:8) and caused them to be stubborn (Rom. 9:18). God prevents the gospels from being preached in certain areas (Act, 16:6-7) and he fixes long before it will happen a person will be born and when he or she will die (Act, 17:26). Those who were going to be saved were chosen by God before the beginning of time (II Tim. 1:9). If a person has faith and is thereby saved, his faith comes from God, and is not from any effort or decision on his part (Eph. 2:9-10). Now one may ask 'If we can only do what God predetermines us to do, how can he hold us responsible for our actions?' The Bible has an answer to this question.

But one of you will say to me: 'If this is so, how can God find fault with anyone? For who can resit God's will?' But who are you, my friend, to answer God back? A clay pot does not ask the man who made it: 'Why did you make me like this?' After all, the man who makes the pot has the right to use the clay as he wishes, and to make two pots from one lump of clay, one for special occasions and one for ordinary use. And the same is true of what God has done. (Rom. 9:19-22)

So as you can see, this makes nonsense of trying to avoid evil and shows God to be a complete bastard who creates men to suffer and murder and burn in hell for eternity.



Twitch_67,

Sure, there are passages that point to predestination, but often there are passages (even within few verses of those) that also point to free will.

I gotta make this short... almost time to go to work... but i'm on vacation next week so maybe i can find some time to spend on this..

For now, think of it this way, according to Christian Doctrine (derived from Scripture), Jesus the Christ is 100% God and at the same time, 100% man. So, if that is true, it would also be possible for the Almighty and All Knowing God, to allow free will while still knowing, ahead of "time" what your choice would be.

Gotta go,

johnny

quote: Jesus the Christ is 100% God and at the same time, 100% man.

That's not so. When I get some more time, I'll go into detail about why Jesus is not the son of God, using the bible as evidence. In fact, I should make a thread about it, but for now I need some sleep.

[This message has been edited by Twitch_67 (edited 10-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Jesus the Christ is 100% God and at the same time, 100% man. So, if that is true, it would also be possible for the Almighty and All Knowing God, to allow free will while still knowing, ahead of "time" what your choice would be.

Your reasoning makes no sense whatsoever. You either believe that an all knowing being negates the possibility of free will or you don't. Whether or not he has the power to be a man at the same time is irrelevant.

Pre-destination is crap, but your fate can be affected by almost everything.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

...For now, think of it this way, according to Christian Doctrine (derived from Scripture), Jesus the Christ is 100% God and at the same time, 100% man. So, if that is true, it would also be possible for the Almighty and All Knowing God, to allow free will while still knowing, ahead of "time" what your choice would be.

Gotta go,

johnny



The problem is that believing that a being could possess the ability to be 100% God and 100% man at the same time defies logic as much as omniscience and free will coexisting.

Real PUA, drop your flying idiot analogy, think it over again and you'll see it makes no sense, omniscience and free will is not a contradiction (or atleast i hasnt been established to be) and its got even less to do with physics. freewill isnt what you can or cannot do, its what you choose.

alot of you argue that if god plays a passive role as an "observer" and nothing else, but most of you forget that (assuming he exists) god created the world. if you roll a ball down a ramp, you only need the first push the rest is up to the ramp. what im trying to say is that god inevitably plays a part.

let's say there is a ball on a pool table. and let's say you are a physicist who not only designed the ball and table, but you have designed it to you exact specifications. and you have calculated that if you strike the ball at a certain angle with a certain amount of force, you'll be able to make the ball follow a path which you have calculated. at every point in time you will know the position and velocity of the ball and you will know the final resting place of the ball. does it sound like you're playing a passive role?

quote:Originally posted by Martini:



It's not that you don't have the freedom to choose B, it's just that if you do, God's decision of what you would choose would be different. An all knowing being seeing the future does not affect free will.

He'd ultimately "know" which option it will be, and then that option cannot change. That "God's decision of what you would choose would be different" is irrelevant in that case.

The point is if that he has knowledge that you will choose A, then you cannot change your mind to choose B. You lack the free will to change your mind.

This was debated in this other thread:

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/005966.html

The problem can be outlined as follows:

1. An infallible, omniscient, being exists. [Assumption]

2. This being has foreknowledge that event 'A' will occur. [Definition of omniscience]

3. 'A' must occur. [Definition of infallible]

4. I cannot choose to do any action which would make it so that 'A' does not occur. [Points, 1, 2, 3]

5. I lack free will. [Point 4]

This arguement can be applied to other beings which are not infallible or omniscient. Clearly, we are only concerned with some specific foreknowledge and the effects that that may have, and "knowledge" itself implies correctness in whatever you know (i.e. a "fact"). A psychic which knows the future, would have foreknowledge about a specific event(implying she is correct in what she saw). I would not be able to perform any action which makes it so that that event does not occur.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

This was debated in this other thread:

http: //www.tots e.com/bbs/ Forum15/HTML/005966.html (http: //www.tots e.com/bbs/ Forum15/HT ML/005966. html)

The problem can be outlined as follows:

1. An infallible, omniscient, being exists. [Assumption]

2. This being has foreknowledge that event 'A' will occur. [Definition of omniscience]

3. 'A' must occur. [Definition of infallible]

4. I cannot choose to do any action which would make it so that 'A' does not occur. [Points, 1, 2, 3]

5. I lack free will. [Point 4]

This arguement can be applied to other beings which are not infallible or omniscient. Clearly, we are only concerned with some specific foreknowledge and the effects that that may have, and "knowledge" itself implies correctness in whatever you know (i.e. a "fact"). A psychic which knows the future, would have foreknowledge about a specific event(implying she is correct in what she saw). I would not be able to perform any action which makes it so that that event does not occur.

I dunno, I've always sort of smirked at these kind of debates. I think the problem is that when you define a being as being out of time, it's not so much 'foreknowledge' because to him, it has simply already happened.

I'm an atheist of course, and I don't think a being exists outside of time or anything like that, but logically if such a being did exist, we could still have free will.

It already happened to him, so it's not that he's determined it for you, it's that he already knew what you chose. The point is, all he knows is what you freely chose, and if he is out of time, then he didn't know "before" hand, because that doesn't apply to him.

Of course, it is all irrelevant since no such being exists. It's probably a little more relevant to talk about his contradictory traits that matter to us though (all merciful vs all just vs all loving) etc. So yea.

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

I dunno, I've always sort of smirked at these kind of debates. I think the problem is that when you define a being as being out of time, it's not so much 'foreknowledge' because to him, it has simply already happened.

That's an excellent point. Here's something else to think about:

Let's assume there is an all knowing God. He gives everyone a brain that is capable of free will and even though he has the power of being omniscient, he disallows himself from seeing the future.

For those that assume that seeing the future stops free will from existing, this should satisfy that free will can now exist.

Then one day God decides to again allow himself to see the future. This does not change the nature of the human brain, therefore, humans don't magically stop having free will.



quote:Originally posted by Rust:



He'd ultimately "know" which option it will be, and then that option cannot change.

He knows which option you will choose. An option to change has nothing to do with anything. You have the options, He knows in advance. If you decide to make a last minute change; he knew about that too. Omniscience does not hamper free will and does not change the nature of the brain.

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

I dunno, I've always sort of smirked at these kind of debates. I think the problem is that when you define a being as being out of time, it's not so much 'foreknowledge' because to him, it has simply already happened.





That's one way out, but it's a way must believers are reluctant to take, and for good reason: if God exists outside of time, the He cannot influence anything that happens "inside" time; effectively, God is relegated to being just a watcher and having no influence in the universe.



Entheogenic

If your future actions are known in advance by anyone, be it God or the Easter Bunny, free will can be no more than an illusion. If the future is known, it is set in stone.

Omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive and cannot coexist.

Knowledge of the future doesn't take away your own ability to control your actions.

You don't go in automatic mode once the prophecised time period begins; you're still choosing what to do.

EDIT: It's about WHY the forseen actions occur. Did they happen the way they were seen because they were seen that way? Or, in the "natural" course of things, was it gonna happen that way anyway?

If a seer knows that a Chinese man is gonna shoot his family, did they cause it to happen? Or did they just gain the knowledge of the future as it would have happened?

[This message has been edited by Merlinman2005 (edited 10-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

Knowledge of the future doesn't take away your own ability to control your actions.

You don't go in automatic mode once the prophecised time period begins; you're still choosing what to do.

EDIT: It's about WHY the forseen actions occur. Did they happen the way they were seen because they were seen that way? Or, in the "natural" course of things, was it gonna happen that way anyway?

If a seer knows that a Chinese man is gonna shoot his family, did they cause it to happen? Or did they just gain the knowledge of the future as it would have happened?



Good! I think you're definitely on to something very sophisticated there. Keep going http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



Entheogenic

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

Knowledge of the future doesn't take away your own ability to control your actions.

You don't go in automatic mode once the prophecised time period begins; you're still choosing what to do.

EDIT: It's about WHY the forseen actions occur. Did they happen the way they were seen because they were seen that way? Or, in the "natural" course of things, was it gonna happen that way anyway?

If a seer knows that a Chinese man is gonna shoot his family, did they cause it to happen? Or did they just gain the knowledge of the future as it would have happened?



This is a common barrier to the understanding of the free will/omniscience thing. It's not that foreknowledge itself causes you to suddenly become an automaton; it's that foreknowledge cannot exist if you are not basically an automaton.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

This is a common barrier to the understanding of the free will/omniscience thing. It's not that foreknowledge itself causes you to suddenly become an automaton; it's that foreknowledge cannot exist if you are not basically an automaton.

But yet

If it did exist, would that make you an automaton, in your opinion?

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

But yet

If it did exist, would that make you an automaton, in your opinion?



His opinion wouldn't matter, because he'd have no freewill to change it. :P

You ARE joking, right?

Please tell me you are, because I can't be too sure.

E: Well I guess the ":P" means you are.

heh

[This message has been edited by Merlinman2005 (edited 10-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

You ARE joking, right?

Please tell me you are, because I can't be too sure.

E: Well I guess the ":P" means you are.

heh



I was joking.

But in all honesty, if I believed in an all knowing God, I would believe I have no ability to make choices whatsoever too.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

But yet

If it did exist, would that make you an automaton, in your opinion?



It would tell me that I was always an automaton, yes. It wouldn't suddenly turn me into one, if that's what you mean.

I use the term "automaton" for simplicity, but that's not really what I mean. I personally believe that free will doesn't matter, since I'd be who I am with or without free will. I want to eat this chocolate bar: it doesn't matter how free this choice really is, it just matters that I want chocolate and I have it. It just matters that it feels free, and that I will be happy; what more could I ask for? http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) But that really has nothing to do with the discussion... just thought I'd throw it in there. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Twitch_67:

If god knows everything, then there is no such thing as freewill; this, however, does not stop believers in an omniscient god from believing the exact opposite.

</thread>

Wrong. If "God" knows what is going to happen, that does not mean at all he chose it.

quote:Originally posted by Mr. Tree:

Wrong. If "God" knows what is going to happen, that does not mean at all he chose it.

I said nothing about God choosing the action, I am saying that God can only know everything if free will does not exist.

edit - yes, but this definitely implies that he does, and, in fact, this is backed up in the Bible (see my post above).

[This message has been edited by Twitch_67 (edited 10-28-2006).]

Here's a good article on this very argument: http://tinyurl.com/yhwwb3

quote:The Freewill Argument

for the Nonexistence of God

By Dan Barker

The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.

In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.

A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.

Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

Some people deny that humans have free will; but all Christians claim that God himself, "in three persons," is a free personal agent, so the argument holds.

Others will object that God, being all-powerful, can change his mind. But if he does, then he did not know the future in the first place. If he truly knows the future, then the future is fixed and not even God can change it. If he changes his mind anyway, then his knowledge was limited. You can't have it both ways: no being can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time.

A more subtle objection is that God "knows" what he is going to do because he always acts in accordance with his nature, which does not diminish his free agency. God might claim, for example, that he will not tell a lie tomorrow--because he always tells the truth. God could choose outside of his nature, but he never does.

But what does "nature of God" mean? To have a nature is to have limits. The "nature" that restricts humans is our physical environment and our genetics; but the "nature" of a supernatural being must be something else. It is inappropriate to say that the "nature" of a being without limits bears the same relationship to the topic of free will that human nature does.

Free will requires having more than one option, a desire to choose, freedom to choose (lack of obstacles), power to accomplish the choice (strength and aptitude), and the potential to avoid the option. "Strength and aptitude" puts a limit on what any person is "free" to do. No human has the free will to run a one-minute mile, without mechanical aid. We are free to try, but we will fail. All of our choices, and our desires as well, are limited by our nature; yet we can still claim free will (those of us who do) because we don't know our future choices.

If God always acts in accordance with his nature (whatever that means), then he still must have more than one viable option that does not contradict his nature if he is to claim free will. Otherwise, he is a slave to his nature, like a robot, and not a free personal agent.

What would the word "option" mean to a being who created all options?

Some say that "free will" with God does not mean what it means with humans. But how are we to understand this? What conditions of free will would a Christian scrap in order to craft a "free agency" for God? Multiple options? Desire? Freedom? Power? Potential to avoid?

Perhaps desire could be jettisoned. Desire implies a lack, and a perfect being should lack nothing. But it would be a very strange "person" with no needs or desires. Desire is what prompts a choice in the first place. It also contributes to assessing whether the decision was reasonable. Without desire, choices are willy-nilly, and not true decisions at all. Besides, the biblical god expressed many desires.

No objection saves the Christian God: he does not exist. Perhaps a more modest deity can be imagined: one that is not both personal and all-knowing, both all-knowing and all-powerful, both perfect and free. But until a god is defined coherently, and then proven to exist with evidence and sound reasoning, it is sensible not to think that such a being exists.

quote:Originally posted by Twitch_67:

That's not so. When I get some more time, I'll go into detail about why Jesus is not the son of God, using the bible as evidence. In fact, I should make a thread about it, but for now I need some sleep.



This i'ld like to see

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

This i'ld like to see



Then check my thread, which is a couple posts down. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

edit: Here ya go: http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/006126.html

[This message has been edited by Twitch_67 (edited 10-28-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Twitch_67:

Here's a good article on this very argument: http://tinyurl.com/yhwwb3



Did you bother to read the article? It's not on this very argument at all.

I have thought long and hard about the question of free wills for a couple years now. I have come to these conclusions:

Either one of 3 is true:

1)There is no god -> no supernatural realm

2)There is a god who knows all and therefore interacts in the world

3)There is a deist god, a clockmaker

Out of these, only option 3 gives us the opportunity for free will.

Either way, I don't believe in free will and believe it is a ridiculous notion that is counterintuitive to how this world operates. The fact that it "seems so obvious" that we have free will is simply an illusion, stemming from our ignorance of what our subconscious is constantly doing, due to our caudate nucleus.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Did you bother to read the article? It's not on this very argument at all.

Yes, it is. It just substitutes "God" for "people."

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Yes, it is. It just substitutes "God" for "people."

Are you serious? If you used "people" in place of "God" in that article, the article would make no sense at all.

The crux of the article is that God would know His own choices in advance - not someone else's.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

The crux of the article is that God would know His own choices in advance - not someone else's.

Same difference. The key is not who is doing the knowing, but that it is known in advance.

quote:In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.

The same problem arises if it is someone else predicting your choices. There would be no uncertainty regarding your choice; God would know exactly what you will choose. There is no potential way to change your mind, because if you did the future God was "knowing" wouldn't actually be the future at all. Like so:

quote:A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows everyone's choices in advance. This means that they have no potential to avoid their choices, and therefore lack free will.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future.



I couldn't disagree with that statement more. While options need to exist, uncertainty need not exist for free will to exist.

If I am given the choice to kill my family for a hundred dollars, I have a choice, but there is absolutely no uncertainty in my mind at any point over what my decision will be. While other decisions I have to make are not so obvious and may take some thought, an

all knowing being could weigh all options in a nanosecond and never have a moment of uncertainty. There is no reason that uncertainty is a necessary component for the existence of free will as the article states.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Jesus the Christ is 100% God and at the same time, 100% man. So, if that is true, it would also be possible for the Almighty and All Knowing God, to allow free will while still knowing, ahead of "time" what your choice would be.

Your reasoning makes no sense whatsoever. You either believe that an all knowing being negates the possibility of free will or you don't. Whether or not he has the power to be a man at the same time is irrelevant.

Hi Martini,

My apologies. I wasnt being clear.

The Divinity and Humanity Doctrine of Jesus was not a supporting arguement of free will.

It was meant as a parallel. So let me try again..

If it is true that Jesus can have attributes that go above and beyond what we as humans consider as incompatible, then it is also possible that free will and predestination are not mutually exclusive (per the type and form of the problem of evil as presented here on TOTSE).

There are other antinomies that i could have used to draw a parallel, but i felt that the Divinity/Humanity of Jesus would be the one most familiar to most people here.

Sorry for my miscommunication,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

The problem is that believing that a being could possess the ability to be 100% God and 100% man at the same time defies logic as much as omniscience and free will coexisting.



Hi truckfixr,

Well, that's kinda what my point was..

Althought i disagree that it defies (human)logic, it is no easy task to come to somesort of grips with them.

If you read much, i suggest a book by

Ken Boa. GOD, I don't understand. published 1975. (i think i've mentioned it before).

He has a more recent book, but i dont recall the title, and i havent read it yet.

More current..

I was recently listening to a semester of a seminary apologetics class, and the Prof. ron Nash mentioned Alvin Plantiga (sp?) as having work through the prob. of evil... i'm looking for either Nash's book (which i think can bring it down to my level) or Plantinga's book (i've tried to read a few of his papers, and i think he is more than i can handle understanding, but then again, i wasnt applying myself.. just skimming, so who knows).

God Bless,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

If it is true that Jesus can have attributes that go above and beyond what we as humans consider as incompatible, then it is also possible that free will and predestination are not mutually exclusive (per the type and form of the problem of evil as presented here on TOTSE).

Breaking that down, it seems that you're saying if supernatural abilities exist, two contradictory possibilities can exist at the same time. I'm not buying that argument.

quote:Originally posted by Twitch_67:

If god knows everything, then there is no such thing as freewill; this, however, does not stop believers in an omniscient god from believing the exact opposite.

</thread>

No, because the question such a "God" doesn't know, is what it is like to NOT know everything.

Maybe matter and conscious thought are a result of this?

On a day to day level, we appear to have free well, not because it was "granted" to us by God, mearly because we are continuing some kind of "order" in existence, and maybe that in itself negates freewill, but on a personal level you are still evaluating the cause and effect of your actions within this.

I guess this can be interpreted as us NOT having free will, in which case all you can do is fulfil what feels like your own "personal" nature.

And if true freewill exists, remember that in the end through using it, you are obeying the very CONCEPT of free will. SO are you "free" even then?

Back to square one http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Mellow_Fellow:

And if true freewill exists, remember that in the end through using it, you are obeying the very CONCEPT of free will. SO are you "free" even then?

If you have free will, you have free will. Not having the ability to change your free will does not negate your free will from existing any more that not being able to jump over a building does.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:



Breaking that down, it seems that you're saying if supernatural abilities exist, two contradictory possibilities can exist at the same time. I'm not buying that argument.



ya, that's exactly what i am saying.. well, sorta. I dont think that God violates the Law of Noncontradiction, but how could we, as finite beings, comprehend all the attributes of an infinite being?.. other than what He has revealed to us.

Omniscience and Omnipotence are, by definition, infinite. But one of the problems with the arguement that they are incompatible, is whether time is infinite.

In other words, in order for finite beings to have free will, we have to make our choices inside of time. But if God is inifinite, He would be able to be both inside and outside of time (and space)...Transcendent and Immanent (not imminent)... Even the very fist verse of the Bible presupposes God before time.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I dont think that God violates the Law of Noncontradiction, but how could we, as finite beings, comprehend all the attributes of an infinite being?

No one is attempting to comprehend all the attributes of an infinite being.

We're discussing whether or not humans can have free will if an omniscient being exists. Saying that free will and predestination can exist at the same time because with God all things are possible, is not only off the track of the conversation, but doesn't help anyone trying to exercise their brains and use logic.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:



We're discussing whether or not humans can have free will if an omniscient being exists. Saying that free will and predestination can exist at the same time because with God all things are possible, is not only off the track of the conversation, but doesn't help anyone trying to exercise their brains and use logic.



They're all pieces of the puzzle.

But whatever...

If you want an exercise, see if you can prove that anyone is capable of choice.

What we recognize:

1) two possible choices (A and B) in the future.

2) the action, in the present, of one of those possible choices.

3) the results of whichever choice was taken

prove that it was possible to do anything other than what was done.

Can you re-state that in complete sentences please? I have no idea of what you're trying to say.

Prove that a person can make a choice.

All we can see, before we make that choice, are the possibilities. All we can prove, after the choice, is the path that was followed. We can only speculate that it was possible to have followed the other path.

Obviously, I am not a Calvinist, because i believe that we do have (limited) free will (i.e. that we can make choices). But so far, i have not seen anyone prove that choice is not just a perception.

And it seems to me (although i could very well be wrong), that in order to claim that Omnimax attributes negate either free will or the Omnimax Being, one must prove that free will (choice) exists in the first place.

The otherside of the coin (i.e. that free will and the Omnimax God can both be true) also has some of the burden of proof (that choice exists).

Problem is.. i've never seen it from either side. We all (except for Calvinists) assume that the ability of choice exists.

johnny

You're off topic again. As I stated earlier in this thread, I don't believe in free will. This topic is about whether or not an omniscient being existing would negate the possibility of free will, not other factors.

quote: Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Hi truckfixr,

Well, that's kinda what my point was..

Althought i disagree that it defies (human)logic, it is no easy task to come to some sort of grips with them.



The only logic we possess is human logic.

Logically, if A and B are of different values, A cannot be B and B cannot be A. The value of A must change before it can be B. Any change in the value of A would no longer make it 100% A.

Logically, if there was absolutely certain foreknowledge of future event A, then the possibility of alternative future event B occurring is zero. If alternative future event B is possible, absolute certain foreknowledge is not possible.

While we can conceive the existence of a Being with the ability to function beyond logic, for one to believe in such a Being, one must be willing to abandon some amount of logical reasoning.

I could be completely wrong here, but from past discussions, I’ve gotten the impression that you are firm in your belief in God, but that you do not blindly accept anything without first looking at it from every angle. I can see where you could have a tough time coming to grips with these points. If such a Being were to exist in reality, He would (due to His omniscience) know how to circumvent logic to make it possible for foreknowledge and free will to coexist. He would know how to make an apple be 100% apple while being 100% an orange at the same time. Since you already believe that such a Being does exist, it’s less difficult for you to accept the coexistence of omniscience and free will, even though you understand that logically, the two are mutually exclusive.



quote:If you read much, i suggest a book by

Ken Boa. GOD, I don't understand. published 1975. (i think i've mentioned it before).

He has a more recent book, but i dont recall the title, and i havent read it yet.

More current..

I was recently listening to a semester of a seminary apologetics class, and the Prof. ron Nash mentioned Alvin Plantiga (sp?) as having work through the prob. of evil... i'm looking for either Nash's book (which i think can bring it down to my level) or Plantinga's book (i've tried to read a few of his papers, and i think he is more than i can handle understanding, but then again, i wasnt applying myself.. just skimming, so who knows).

God Bless,

johnny

Thanks for the suggestions. I’ll check into them as soon as the opportunity arises.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

You're off topic again. As I stated earlier in this thread, I don't believe in free will. This topic is about whether or not an omniscient being existing would negate the possibility of free will, not other factors.

I am not off topic! Nor have i been.

These are all parts of the whole topic.

If you do not believe in free will, how could i be off topic, because then i could have done nothing other than respond... and the exact way i've responded.

Put a different way, there are only 3 ways to look at it:

1)free will (choice) exists

2)all things are predestine (but then, by whom or what)

3)all things happen by random chance (but then, that means that nothing could be coherent)



So, if we can percieve coherence, then i think that rules out #3.

If all things are completely predestine, then that puts the responsibility of Sin, on God.

Therefore, He would be both unjust and a liar.

But that is in opposition of who He says He is.

So that negates God's existance.

But then, who or what predestine.

Complete predestination contradicts itself.

So, does choice exist?... even if it is limited

Or have i missed a different possibility?

(remember, my position is that both predestination AND free will exists)



johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

If you do not believe in free will, how could i be off topic, because then i could have done nothing other than respond... and the exact way I've responded.

Holy freakin' moly, you're logic is baffling!

You're saying it is impossible for anyone to be off-topic if there is no free will? Wrong!!!!!

Lack of free will does not magically make any post on a message board on topic!

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

But then, who or what predestine.

Complete predestination contradicts itself.

No, it doesn't. Every reaction that took place since the first moment of time the instant after the Big Bang could happen without any randomness. In that way, there was only one possible outcome to everything from the beginning, which is essentially the same as pre-destiny.

It is possible that God knows everything that COULD happen rather than everything that WILL happen...

in which case omni-clairvoyance ain't what it's cracked up to be.

Martini,

What you are saying, is that, from the point of the Big Bang, all things are a cause and effect. And that is the same thing as predestination, and you rule out free will, because of this cause & effect.

Am i following your line of thinking, so far?

But you also say, "Lack of free will does not magically make any post on a message board on topic!"

From your first line of thinking, wouldnt thoughts and communication be an extended effect of that First Cause (the Big Bang, in this case) ?

And if they are extended effects, then my comments are not free will, but destiny, caused by that First Cause.

If thoughts and comments are not destiny, they must be either random or willed.

If, as you say, my logic is baffling, then correct me.

Show me how, "Lack of free will does not magically make any post on a message board on topic!"... if, infact, there is no free will.

Remember, it was you who said, "In that way, there was only one possible outcome to everything from the beginning,..."

Wouldnt topics of threads fall under that "everything"?

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Show me how, "Lack of free will does not magically make any post on a message board on topic!"... if, infact, there is no free will.

Whether or not one has free will to post what he does, does not mean that everything he posts is appropriate. If you don't understand that, start another thread somewhere asking for further explanation. This thread is just getting even more off-topic at this point, free will or none.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Show me how, "Lack of free will does not magically make any post on a message board on topic!"... if, infact, there is no free will.

Whether or not one has free will to post what he does, does not mean that everything he posts is appropriate. If you don't understand that, start another thread somewhere asking for further explanation. This thread is just getting even more off-topic at this point, free will or none.

And, free will or not, either i fail to see how it has been off topic (and inappropriate)

or

you fail to see that it has been wholly to the point of the topic, and very appropriate..

free will or not.

God Bless,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

I dunno, I've always sort of smirked at these kind of debates. I think the problem is that when you define a being as being out of time, it's not so much 'foreknowledge' because to him, it has simply already happened.

Whether it has already happened to him or not is simply unimportant because what happens to him is not being debated; we are debating what happens to us. The fact is that he would know what would occur in our future, and that is enough to curtail our free will. Whether that event is actually something in his past, his present, his future or just an event outside of time, is not at all important.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-29-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

He knows which option you will choose. An option to change has nothing to do with anything. You have the options, He knows in advance. If you decide to make a last minute change; he knew about that too. Omniscience does not hamper free will and does not change the nature of the brain.

We are considering the final "knowledge" the god has of the future, changes and all.

It would be as if he were to see into our future and then write down an event that would occur (i.e. event "A"). When that particular moment in our time comes, event A must happen, and we lack any and all will to make it so that A does not happen. We lack free will.

To say that "If you decide to make a last minute change; he knew about that too" is meaningless because we're already assuming this. We're already using the final "knowledge" he had of the future. It's that we can't deviate from that which causes the problem. When he see's into our future, he has set it in stone. We cannot change it, we cannot deviate from it, and we cannot change our minds. A future where every outcome is set in stone, without the possibility to deviate is simply not free will.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-29-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Martini:



I couldn't disagree with that statement more. While options need to exist, uncertainty need not exist for free will to exist.

If I am given the choice to kill my family for a hundred dollars, I have a choice, but there is absolutely no uncertainty in my mind at any point over what my decision will be. While other decisions I have to make are not so obvious and may take some thought, an

all knowing being could weigh all options in a nanosecond and never have a moment of uncertainty. There is no reason that uncertainty is a necessary component for the existence of free will as the article states.





No, there most definately is uncertainty in that case. It may appear that the choice is an obvious one but you could very well choose to take the $100 dollars and kill your family; an unlikely choice? Sure, but definately a possible one and therefore, we cannot be certain of what the choice will be.

You keep falling into the same pitfalls. Just because something seems obvious, doesn't mean that it must occur out of logical necessity. You fell into the same problem in the other thread, when you were arguing that a fathers "knows" what his child would do. The father might have an educated guess, or the action that his child will choose might seem obvious to him, but the fact remains that his child can act differently to what seems obvious to him. He doesn't possess certainty, he, at best, possesses knowledge about the likelyhood of an event which is not certainty.

I get the feeling that some of you are having trouble with the concept of omniscience. You appear to think of God seeing future events as snapshots or momentary clips of events, with unknown gaps leading up to the specific event in question.

For God to be onmiscient, He would have to know everything in advance. Every breath you will take. Every thought you will think. How many nanoseconds until the sun burns out...Everything!

For Him to know the future with certainty, the future must be pre-determined.Set in stone. Unchangeable.

If the future is set in stone, free will can be no more than an illusion.

If you truly have the unhindered ability to make your own choices, the future cannot be set in stone, thus negating omniscience.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

For Him to know the future with certainty, the future must be pre-determined.Set in stone. Unchangeable.

If the future is set in stone, free will can be no more than an illusion.



You beat me to it.

But yeah, that's the situation. It doesn't matter if there is a god or if anyone even knows the future. If the future is by it's nature even potentially knowable (to 100% accuracy allowing for no fuck-ups or deviation that would throw off the absolute knowledge) then something must have determined what exactly the future was going to be ahead of time.

And if something else predecided the future, then even if we found out what it was, there would be no way we could deviate from the perfect foreknowledge of what the future will be. in avoiding it, we would actually end up causing it. If we did nothing, then it woul happen as per the prediction. It doesn't matter what you do then, because you're stuck following the script of the future.

The only thing you've really done is awakened from the illusion of free will and realized that you were unknowingly stuck following a predetermined course of action.

In order for free will to exist, the future has to be a blank state. There has to actually be no future substance in which to view or draw information from, only the present. Nobody can know for sure what's going to happen in advance, because all us free-willed agents actively shape what that will be and it could go any direction, depending on how we will it.

That would be the closest thing to free will as one could get.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

We are considering the final "knowledge" the god has of the future, changes and all.

It would be as if he were to see into our future and then write down an event thatwould occur (i.e. event "A"). When that particular moment in our time comes, event A must happen, and we lack any and all will to make it so that A does not happen. We lack free will.

But the reason it must happen is because God sees the future and can see what choices we will make (or have made on another dimension) using our own free will.



That's why what IanBoyd3 said about God being outside if time is an important concept to look at (not that it's necessarily how an omniscient being would know the future).

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

When he see's into our future, he has set it in stone.

No, He hasn't set it in stone; others with free will have. He's an outside observer. Of course there will be only one outcome in the future. A determining outcome of what the future will be, will be dependent on what choices humans make using the free will He gave them. The fact that He can see the future is irrelevant.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

No, there most definately is uncertainty in that case. It may appear that the choice is an obvious one but you could very well choose to take the $100 dollars and kill your family; an unlikely choice? Sure, but definately a possible one and therefore, we cannot be certain of what the choice will be.

Of course I still have the choice, but I am always certain of what I'd choose.

If God made the choice to always do the right thing, then of course he knows all of His choices in the future (if there is a future in God's realm). It doesn't mean that His actions are not of His own free will.

He's certain of his choices, yet has free will. Uncertainty need not exist for free will to exist.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

But the reason it must happen is because God sees the future and can see what choices we will make (or have made on another dimension) using our own free will.

1. You're assuming that there is free will to begin with, which is what you're trying to prove.

2. We must still maintain the ability to change our mind in order for free will to exist, which has been my point since the start. Whether you claim those "choices" were made with free will or not does not change the fact that we would ultimately lack the free will to change our minds when the times comes.



Free will is simply not compatible with a future set in stone.

quote:

That's why what IanBoyd3 said about God being outside if time is an important concept to look at (not that it's necessarily how an omniscient being would know the future).

It's not important because how the event exists relative to him is irrelevant; what is important it how the event exists relative to us.

quote:

No, He hasn't set it in stone; others with free will have. He's an outside observer. Of course there will be only one outcome in the future. A determining outcome of what the future will be, will be dependent on what choices humans make using the free will He gave them. The fact that He can see the future is irrelevant.

He definately did set it in stone since by knowing the future, he has made it so that we lack the ability to change our minds, to change the outcome of the future. That alone refutes free will.

quote:



Of course I still have the choice, but I am always certain of what I'd choose.

If God made the choice to always do the right thing, then of course he knows all of His choices in the future (if there is a future in God's realm). It doesn't mean that His actions are not of His own free will.

He's certain of his choices, yet has free will. Uncertainty need not exist for free will to exist.

1. The certainty in that case is not out of a logical necessity. Again, you assume it is because it is so obvious to you what your choice would be that it seems ridiculous that you would ever choose any other choice; however, the fact remains that the other possibilities exist and as such, you are not certain of what you will choose.

2. In any case, what is important is what certainty (or uncertainty) there is for a third party observer. Uncertainty must exist when judging somwthing to be a choice, since the choice would be predetermined (or not a choice between two or more things at all) if it were certain. If the outcome of a choice between A or B is certain before hand, either it has been pre-determined, or it wasn't a choice at all to begin with.

We have the ability to believe we have free will.

quote:Originally posted by martini:

The fact that He can see the future is irrelevant.

The fact that the future can be absolutely ascertained in advance disproves free will.

In order to see chapter 12 of the book that is the future, the book has to be written. If the book is written, then the author (whatever that may be) determined what was going to happen, and therefore the characters unknowingly have no free will.

If the future can be seen then something determined it and we're stuck fulfilling the determinism.

In a free-willed system, our wills determine the course of events and nothing can say which way it will go since it's entirely dependent on however we will it.

In a system where the future is knowable, whatever determined the future is determining the course of events, thereby ruling out anything else from happening.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 10-30-2006).]