Free will and an omniscient God

[Helz]

If you do not believe there is a big guy in the sky don't take part in this conversation with that line of thought. This topic is only valid on the premise that there is in fact a God.

I have had this on my mind fore the past month or two and figured others might find the idea interesting as well.

So if God is all knowing in every sense of the word he knows every situation we will be put in and what we will do in each situation. He also knows that if he changed X we would do X differently.
With that said is free will real at all? He could have changed something very small very far back and we would have made a different choice because the situation we would be presented with would be different. Or is god really omniscient at all?

Can we logically reason a way for these two things to exist? If not which is real- The Omniscient's of god or the free will?

[louiswill]

I'm learning a economy course atm. I think I can make some ideas.

That X is X, and Y is Y is only in current statue or reference.

To a omniscient god, X means Y and Y will means X.

Thus, a god will not do anything because it can see the common in respective to a long time, and the difference in a short time frame is no longer a matter toward a god who lives infinite time and exist both future and past.



Why mention economic? Because it is about decision making.

People make decision because they need to trade off.

To a person only live 100 years or so, things are valued differently from each other.

Those object all refer to different opportunity cost and therefore lead to different margin benefit.

However, to a god, it knows both a stone and a diamond are there and why and how long, therefore,

a stone and a diamond will worth the same toward a god.


To a little bigger problem such as human's well being,

a god will not feel much difference for its time.



If so, then that means a god will simply don't do anything due to there is no different between decisions.



To humans, it is equal to say there is no god or one god if the intervene of a god is what humans only care. --- if there is no god, there is no intervene. If there is a god, there will still be no intervene.


Contrarily,
It also means, if there are two gods, they can't be both omniscient. Because the different choice they make must because they value things different. IF they were both omniscient, they should reach the same conclusion instead.

[Vagina]

I'm going to revive this topic only because I feel like the question was never answered. The philosophy/psychology of a religion has very little to do with economics, and it is basically impossible to assume a perfect God would retain any thoughts of the humans he created. Therefore, the economic standpoint above holds little precedence in the question at all, since all the information it presents is basically fallible in this example. And, of course, it doesn't even answer the question.

Logically, God's omniscience and a human's free will cannot coincide in the way of salvation. Humans can either claim to say that they caused their salvation (free will) or that a higher being caused them to cause it (omniscience/predestination). There's really no logical way to overlap the two, since anything involving choice would be overpowered by a God's omniscience and omnipotence that basically takes precedence over any extremely insignificant human's role in anything. And, if a human were to say that their choice to follow a certain religion took precedence, that would be the same logically as claiming that their precedence overpowers that God, meaning that he/she is more powerful than God at that instant, which is impossible.

[louiswill]

inspiration counts. There is always a little bit universal laws in all studies.
The source is irrelevant doesn't make my conclusion wrong.

For example,
How do we know god is beyond logic or not?

[Vagina]

It's not the fact that God is beyond logic, but the fact that any laws of economics don't apply to a God. The whole explanation you attempted to make toward worth has absolutely nothing to do with the link between predestination (if we have to label it) and free will.

[louiswill]

I wasn't implying anything on god, but construct an idea that is able to explain and solve conflicts at a human point of view.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk 2

[Vagina]

Okay, so the title of the thread is "Free will and an omniscient God" and you're attempting to answer the question by taking God out of the equation? That's not even possible.

[louiswill]

Okay, so the title of the thread is "Free will and an omniscient God" and you're attempting to answer the question by taking God out of the equation? That's not even possible.

No, I wasn't taking god out of the equation, and my point stands.

the reason is this:

If by using human's knowledge alone that I can explain the co-existence's possibility, then if there is a god, the god can do better than me.

How god actually work, I do not know, but if I as a human is able to make two ideas co-exist then the god can do better.

God is always in the equation but it is outside of the bracket.

[Nick]

This thread should be relevant to your questions

http://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showthread.php/23119-The-Problem-of-Evil

Opening post:


"1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists."


Discuss

[Nick]

@louiswill
You didn't answer TLL's question.

[louiswill]

@Nick
"Can we logically reason a way for these two things to exist? If not which is real- The Omniscient's of god or the free will? "
I can and I did answer.

[Nick]

omniscient
ɒmˈnɪsɪənt

adjective
adjective: omniscient
1.
knowing everything.
"a third-person omniscient narrator"


==============================


free will

noun
noun: free will; noun: freewill
1.
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

adjective
adjective: free-will; adjective: free will; adjective: freewill


1.
(especially of a donation) voluntary.
"free-will offerings"

[Nick]

"God is omniscient" and "Humans have free will" are mutually exclusive. But it does not work for TLL's proposed scenario; his idea of God.

I don't even understand what you are talking about. Seems to me you are proposing your own idea of god than answering TLL's.




EDIT:
A summary of what loiuswill is saying: "God just can't be bothered".

[Nick]

Logically, God's omniscience and a human's free will cannot coincide in the way of salvation.

QFT

[Vagina]

Anyway, Louis, basically what Nick is saying is that it really doesn't matter what God's opinion of the world is. In this example in the thread, if free will and omniscience and coexist, logically, God has to care.

[louiswill]

@Nick Freewill and omniscience can coexist. The definition doesn't make the two conflict at all.


In this example in the thread, if free will and omniscience and coexist, logically, God has to care.

TLL said God can make a change, and ask why not. And he further ask, if not, then would omniscience and freewill not coesxist. At last, he asked, if not which one exist.

My point is that, assume there is a god and it care, it is making the best decision and there is no problem with freewill.

You and Nick agree "Logically, God's omniscience and a human's free will cannot coincide in the way of salvation."
The definition is just not enough, or I can not find any thing conflict to each other directly, plus, you introduced salvation, another idea into the discussion.

If you think they logically can't coexist, but you admit god is probably beyond logic, then what are you trying to point at?

Or at least logically explain why the two can not coexist, step by step.

[AppleyNO]

Free will, in my mind, is a tricky concept. God or no God, there are difficulties in defining free will. Perhaps we are acting only on base inputs in our environment.

That aside, if God is omniscient (knowing everything that will happen), doesn't mean that we don't have free will. We could be making our own decisions with the outcome already known to God. If he changes something in our environment to change our reactions (since he knows what would happen if he does), it doesn't matter. We still make that decision.

This, of course, says nothing to the contractions of being omniscient, all-powerful, and benevolent like the Christian God is. If he knows how people will react, even before they know, then why not use his powers benevolently and change that person's environment? But I digress.

[Vagina]

But if we really had free will, wouldn't we be able to digress from the apparent future that the omniscient God envisions? That's really what it comes down to.

[AppleyNO]

But if we really had free will, wouldn't we be able to digress from the apparent future that the omniscient God envisions? That's really what it comes down to.
Again, what is free will? Is it making decisions about your immediate surroundings or being able to decide your future reasonable well? Depending on how you answer my question, your question will be answered.

[Vagina]

I'd have to say free will is having the power to choose any outcome without any power or outside force controlling your action.

[AppleyNO]

I'd have to say free will is having the power to choose any outcome without any power or outside force controlling your action.
Then a God setting up those outcomes wouldn't interfere with your free will.

[louiswill]

I'd have to say free will is having the power to choose any outcome without any power or outside force controlling your action.

In order to allow the freewill of your own definition coexist with a god,
Then You can simply construct an idea of god which doesn't choose outcome for you.
What problem have you encountered?

[Cryptonic]

If there is no free will, Hell can not exist. Since Christian and Catholic teachings say there is a hell for the bad actions your commit, then you logically have to have free will. Why would we be punished for actions predetermined by God?

[Nick]

"God is omniscient" and "Humans have free will" are mutually exclusive. But it does not work for TLL's proposed scenario; his idea of God.

Major derp.

... are *NOT* mutually exclusive. But...

[Nick]

Then a God setting up those outcomes wouldn't interfere with your free will.


In order to allow the freewill of your own definition coexist with a god,
Then You can simply construct an idea of god which doesn't choose outcome for you.
What problem have you encountered?

Which means "god" can't predict the future (your choices), thus "omniscience" of past events but not future ones.

Good explanation.

It's not a test if you already knew the answer.

[louiswill]

Which means "god" can't predict the future (your choices), meaning "omniscience" of past events but not future ones.

Good explanation.

A rigid future scene is not what future is.
From what I know, future is at least not as fixed as the past.

So I guess, in your point of view, you see 'future''s content same as 'past'?
Then you could ask another question,
How could a god knows the past and be able to change the past at same time?
Those are conflicts brought up by your own definition of the 'knowing' and 'future'

Uncertainty is something you should learn to deal with as part of the reality.

[Vagina]

Okay, before I reply, I have no idea what ^^^^^ means at all.

And I like the idea that Cryptonic has, but I guess one way omniscience and free will can coincide is that omniscience is knowing everything, not necessarily controlling everything. Humans would have the ability to choose, but the God would know all of their choices and the possible outcomes of their choices' consequences. This would rectify the Hell theory of yours, I think.

[Nick]

A rigid future scene is not what future is.
From what I know, future is at least not as fixed as the past.

TLL's definition includes foreknowledge.



So I guess, in your point of view, you see 'future''s content same as 'past'?
Then you could ask another question,
How could a god knows the past and be able to change the past at same time?
Those are conflicts brought up by your own definition of the 'knowing' and 'future'

Uncertainty is something you should learn to deal with as part of the reality.

I don't believe in all these stuff. I participated because of the logical question he proposed.


Anyway TLL's question is old news, other have discussed about it before. Just read this article for philosophical arguments on omniscience. It addresses TLL's question.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omniscience/

[louiswill]

Okay, before I reply, I have no idea what ^^^^^ means at all.
And I like the idea that Cryptonic has, but I guess one way omniscience and free will can coincide is that omniscience is knowing everything, not necessarily controlling everything. Humans would have the ability to choose, but the God would know all of their choices and the possible outcomes of their choices' consequences. This would rectify the Hell theory of yours, I think.

Therefore, everything solved, but TTL's.

[Vagina]

Then to answer TTL's question, I do believe that it would still be free will, because even if he changes the past or the future, he is not directly choosing for the said person. The God would be influencing it rather than the alternative choosing for that person.

[Nick]

And I like the idea that Cryptonic has, but I guess one way omniscience and free will can coincide is that omniscience is knowing everything, not necessarily controlling everything. Humans would have the ability to choose, but the God would know all of their choices and the possible outcomes of their choices' consequences. This would rectify the Hell theory of yours, I think.

Which means your final destination, heaven or hell, had been decided even before one is born. While logical, it leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.

[Nick]

The God would be influencing it rather than the alternative choosing for that person.

Omniscience of the past, present and future excludes "would be influencing it" and other probabilistic arguments.

[Vagina]

Why does it exclude that?

[Nick]

With omniscience, you only deal with "yes or no" (absolutes), never "maybe" (probabilities).

[louiswill]

Future is neither yes or no. Logical is also beyond yes or no. Narrowed ideas will always have more precision but sacrifice its own usefulness.


We are looking for questions with yes and no as answers, but we shall not always expect all question's answer to be yes or no.

I guess this loophole of mind also explain a lot of responding posts on this site are simply "no. The end."


Funny how the calculus is build upon a mean value theorem which guaranteed a point but never tell you where it is.
"Is there a point?" "Yes"
"Where is it?" "Somewhere in the [a,b]."
"Have you known everything of this graph now?" "I hope I know everything that I can know now."

[Vagina]

The more funny thing is that in your comparison using calculus, by using other theorems other than MVT, you can definitely find that point.

And, what I mean by influencing a person's choices is that any manipulation of time would not directly lead any individual to choose a certain way or another. Each individual would still have a choice do do whatever he or she wanted whether it is logical or not. It would be an indirect attempt to have someone choose a certain way, or influence.

[Nick]

Future is neither yes or no. Logical is also beyond yes or no. Narrowed ideas will always have more precision but sacrifice its own usefulness.


We are looking for questions with yes and no as answers, but we shall not always expect all question's answer to be yes or no.

I guess this loophole of mind also explain a lot of responding posts on this site are simply "no. The end."


Funny how the calculus is build upon a mean value theorem which guaranteed a point but never tell you where it is.
"Is there a point?" "Yes"
"Where is it?" "Somewhere in the [a,b]."
"Have you known everything of this graph now?" "I hope I know everything that I can know now."

Can be shortened to "omniscience of the future is bullshit".

The example you gave is not omniscience (because you don't know the value of a and b).

It's like a kid telling his mom: "I got the highest score in Language class, after John, Jim, Jack, Sammy, Theresa... {list of 20 names}."

[Legacy]

Even though I'm atheist I'll join this discussion.

One theory that makes sense to me is that everything that has happened and ever will happen cannot happen in any other way.

Due to physics, all natural things that happen cannot happen in a different way unless the laws of physics change.

You make decisions based upon your personality. Your personality is what it is because of how nature and other people have impacted you (and there's a big chain effect because those people's personalities were impacted too).

So never go "I could've", "what if", or "I should've", because it couldn't have happened any other way (unless the laws of physics were somehow changed).

Edit:

In essence we have no free will. Our choices are based upon people's impacts upon us which eventually boils down to nature's impact upon everything. And the laws of physics determine how nature works. Which means that the laws of physics control us.

[louiswill]

Can be shortened to "omniscience of the future is bullshit".

The example you gave is not omniscience (because you don't know the value of a and b).

It's like a kid telling his mom: "I got the highest score in Language class, after John, Jim, Jack, Sammy, Theresa... {list of 20 names}."

The point is, there is a person whose score is the highest among all scores. That is a yes and no question about a not yes or no knowing.
I was not given an example of omniscience but an example of knowing something abstract.

I don't think bullshit is a good choice of word.


Anyway , just like what Legacy said, it is the limitation gives a prediction to infinite.
As long as our choices are limited, then there is always a way to know it.
Though it is not sure which one will we choose.