Simple question, this isn't about whether or not God exists. For the purposes of this thread it will be assumed he does in some form. I've seen a lot of religious people say God is omnipotent and omniscient. These aren't just the "crazy" religious people that do things like take the bible seriously. I also have no problem with this because obviously if he is God he should be omnipotent and omniscient.
But it made me think about free will. If God already knows everything that will happen, it means he would of known that even before he created humanity. If we are created with him already knowing everything we will do, do we have actual free will?
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
I won't argue the premise of God's existence for the sake of the OP. But the issue of free will as defined by (most) religions has nothing to do with God's omniscience. But everything to do with causality.
Religious free will, in philosophy and scientific circles, is more commonly known as libertarian free will (not to be confused with the political ideology). Basically, it states that we have the ability to choose between two outcomes. Chocolate or vanilla? More to the point, good or evil? We could choose either one, states libertarian free will. This makes intuitive sense, and feels true to us when we think about our thought processes and choices.
Except there's a problem. Just as gravity affects everything equally according to its force, just as atoms move according to the physical laws of the universe, we're made of the same stuff and subject to the same forces. No known study or test that's ever been conducted suggests anything other than this: that we are entirely causal beings. Libertarian free will requires a miracle to occur each time a choice is made. In a completely literal sense, it requires a defiance of the fundamental laws of physics with each decision to hold true. At that point, the only defenses of the concept go one of two ways: either they devolve into magical thinking (i.e. "humans are special") or they water down the idea to the extent that it either makes no coherent sense or is indistinguishable from the deterministic models it seeks to argue against.
Because we're incapable of knowing what these forces are at any given moment, and how they will affect us, we're able to maintain the illusion of free will.
...
More specific to the OP's question, if we took libertarian free will as true, I'd actually have no problem reconciling it with God's omniscience. There are numerous potential ways through that argument. One might be to say that someone else knowing our choices in advance doesn't make them any less our own. Or they may say that God willingly gives up his omniscience in order to imbue his creations with said free will. Or simply invoke the impossibility of understanding a concept as abstract as omniscience, that's entirely beyond our human capacity to fathom, and then resorting to faith, passages from the Bible, or whatever other source you'd like to credit. I prefer the first of those three, but any could suffice. But like the "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?" question, it's vexing only in a rudimentary sense.
I would say that 'God' is sooo infinite, there is room in creation for free will, determinism and the resulting paradox. We can't understand this, but then, we are not That Conscious.
Perhaps it's a kind of Reality Superposition ... child's play for Unconditional Infinity.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Poetic, but nonsensical. By saying we can't understand it, you're just pushing this belief into the realm of blind, unsupported faith. In the meantime, we have, well, every bit of empirical evidence ever on the subject to suggest that the universe, and thus humans, are entirely deterministic.
There are various philosophical camps on free will, both within religion and without. I can't say I've ever seen one espousing both determinism AND libertarian free will, though. At least not with anything resembling a following. Points for originality, at least.
Btw, on your use of the idea of superposition, quantum theorists have tried to work libertarian free will in the back door of quantum uncertainty before. With no success. Obviously it's foolish to say we know everything, but what we do know is quite unambiguous.
There are many things that are beyond our tiny human minds to understand and/or comprehend concerning God but I'd say Mindship pretty much hit the nail on the head. Of course free will exists. God would not make a bunch of robots or puppets who had no control over their actions or were pre-ordained to follow a certain path in their life. Everyone has a choice. Even the angels who serve God. They serve Him and praise Him out of love not because they're forced to. As proven by the Lucifer rebellion, they can choose to turn against Him if they so choose. The fact that God is all-knowing doesn't prove that free will doesn't exist. It's irrelevant.
Oh, and Digi, our faith is not "blind" as so many of you atheists always assume. Creation itself and Jesus Christ is all the proof that those of us who know God exists will ever need.
__________________ Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.-Dr. David Berlinski, Philosophy
Most people believe Evolution not because they themselves are dumb, but cause they trust the "experts" who are feeding them evolutionary fast food, and so they don't bother questioning whether or not it's true.
Last edited by Star428 on Jun 3rd, 2015 at 04:27 PM
See, the difference between us is that I wouldn't be caught saying "Of course we know..." with anything other than a sarcastic tone. If there were anything resembling such certainty, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Your language belies your methodology in deriving your beliefs.
Creation isn't a defense of one idea over another, though. Your argument is basically: "the universe exists, ergo my ideas are the right ones." Creation implies creation. The logical gap between creation and a specific religion's version of free will is missing about 20 logical steps.
I'm talking about two different ideas, one of which has every bit of evidence known to us. Obviously your beliefs are based in faith and/or derived from non-empirical authorities, so we're not going to agree. But let me try a quick thought experiment with you. No jokes, I just want to hear your response.
...
You are about to go get ice cream and you are torn between chocolate and vanilla. You aren't leaning one way or another, and it feels like a literal coin flip internally. You drive to the ice cream shop and walk up to the counter. Which do you pick?
The choice itself isn't important yet. Let's say it's vanilla. Now, we're going to rewind time back to the point at which you left for the ice cream shop. Literally, the universe moves backwards in time to that exact moment, and every atom is in the same place it was the first time. And, here's the other important part, you are not aware of the previous iteration of this. You're driving to the shop the same as before, with the same ambiguity over your choice.
You picked vanilla the first time. Which flavor do you pick the second time?
Now do the same thing again. You are not aware of previous iterations, and every iota of existence is rewound to the precise place it was in the first iteration. Which do you pick the third time? The fourth? Fifth? Hundredth? Millionth?
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
Digi, I believe that both choices exist in parallel universes and by choosing one or the other you define your reality. Kind of a Schrödinger's cat thing.
Of course I don't believe in free will, because every possible choice exists in the waveform of the universe. Causality is what defines my reality.
You're closer than the others to actually aligning with plausible scientific thought. But I've also seen research on quantum uncertainty that casts a pall over this idea. The old line was that observing something caused the waveform to collapse, which added the idea that it required actual human observation in order to collapse. It gave a specialness to human involvement that was unwarranted. In actuality, the physical conditions needed to observe something (light, etc.) collapse quantum superpositions irrespective of the human element.
There have also been attempts to locate quantum vibrations in neurons and such, in order to justify the idea that two decisions can exist at once and may theoretically split into multiple universes. While interesting, and requiring further study, the conclusions so far have been underwhelming for its proponents. Basically, nothing concrete has been found that would suggest quantum states in the brain/consciousness/neurons/etc. And if they were, detractors point out that such states likely wouldn't be significant enough to affect our minds at a level which would actually alter our choices. Basically, even the proven presence of quantum vibrations would only be the first step in a long series of steps to prove something resembling free will in a libertarian sense.
Obviously I'm a layman relating these ideas. It's not comprehensive nor, likely, without errors and oversimplifications. Feel free to do your own research, and I hope further research is done on this idea. And as I mentioned, you're a lot closer to a possible justification than any I've seen in this thread so far. But given what we know so far, I find this explanation unlikely, at best. And, given the intrinsic appeal of an idea like libertarian free will, I think it's far more likely that we're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole in order to justify an idea that never made much sense in the first place.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
I never believed that humans are responsible for collapsing the waveform. We are tide to causality like blinders. I can only realize the reality that is connected by causality.
I could be wrong, but if I had the chance to do it all over again, I believe I would make the same mistake.
Digi, I would expect no less from you but I believe the OP said ...
I was trying to frame my response from that angle (a little trickier than I thought it would be). Had this been another straight-out "Does God exist?" thread, my response would've centered on the only certainty I know: that free will can be regarded as a reliable as-if.
Btw, the ineffability of the Absolute/God/Whatever is a core element of the perennial philosophy, of all the great mystical schools of thought. It is not a blind-faith response but ultimately based on meditative experiences. Now what these experiences may actually mean is the $64,000 question: are they real glimpses of the Transcendent, or are they reflecting only common brain structure and process?
This is why I like the Zen approach, which is essentially: "You want to find out something? (Does 'God' exists?) Do this (meditate). Observe. Then we'll talk about it."
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Fair enough. I think that the theory of a multiverse is fascinating, and well worth study. But that if it exists, it's nothing like most people imagine or want it to be, especially as it pertains to personal decisions. And I think that trying to use it to shoehorn free will into the discussion is intellectually irresponsible wishful thinking.
That's not what you're doing. You're more than content with the idea of causality. But the dogged defense of free will by many, I believe, is rooted in an emotional response to their fears of the alternative.
Frankly, I find determinism more comforting than libertarian free will. My decisions are entirely my own, created and executed by the causal entity that is me. It's cool.
In fairness, it's really hard to dance around the question within OP's framework if I'm describing my thoughts on this.
At least you acknowledge that it could just be a brain structure thing. Many don't. Because while the experience itself can feel transcendent, in terms of its descriptive value on reality, it's just a fancy hunch.
I'm actually interested in Star's response to my thought experiment. Ive not heard many religious responses to the question it raises. A shame it likely won't happen.
If Jesus is omnipotent he'd be able to eat a burrito of any temperature. Therefore a burrito of a temperature that Jesus wouldn't be able to eat couldn't logically exist.
So the answer is no; Jesus could not microwave a burrito so hot that he couldn't eat it. This would go against Jesus omnipotence since you can't use logical absurdities to discredit ideas or arguments.
Last edited by Astner on Jun 5th, 2015 at 01:51 AM
But would Jesus be able of using logical absuldities to discredit his own omnipotence? You make a fine argument for God being a non-speaker instead of a performative-speaker
From which part of the myth do you get the word "omnipotent"?
KMC Community Forums
Jun 3rd, 2015 12:18 AM
but I believe the OP said ... 
