Customer Discussions > Religion forum

"An Omnisicient God and Free Will Cannot Coexist."


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 117 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 5, 2012 6:17:03 PM PST
Joe W says:
I miss Scobenja.

scobenja said [Mar 24, 2008 9:46:58 AM PDT]
1) If a future event can be predicted, today, with certainty, then such an event is inevitable.
2) If a future event is not inevitable (if multiple outcomes are all possible) then its outcome cannot be predicted with certainty.
3) If a future event is inevitable, then no person has the power to do anything now to keep that event from occurring.
4) If any person has the power to keep a future event from occurring, then that event is not inevitable.
5) An omniscient being (whether a person or a God) can predict all future events with certainty.
6) Therefore, if there is even one omniscient entity, all future events can be predicted with certainty, at least by that omniscient entity.
7) Therefore, if there is an omniscient entity, all future events are inevitable.
8) If all future events are inevitable, no person has the power to do anything now to keep these inevitable future events (to wit: all future events) from happening.
9) If no person has the power to do anything now, to keep any future event from happening, then no person has free will.

"An Omnisicient God and Free Will Cannot Coexist."

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 6:24:29 PM PST
I have to disagree with this line of reasoning.

Today, on my morning walk, and, upon coming to a fork in the road, choose to go left rather than right.

A nearby traffic camera records my having made that choice.

A. I ship that image to someone across the country, where they view me making that choice.

B. I drop the tape in a suitably equipped DeLorean, which proceeds to go back in time, whereupon some denizen of the past views that same recording.

What is the difference between (A) and (B) such that (B) represents the end of Free Will?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 6:29:35 PM PST
Joe W says:
The suitably equipped DeLorean creates a new timeline. The version of you who made the choice in unaffected, and the picture taken does not represent the Michael on that timeline.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 6:32:47 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Nov 5, 2012 7:04:13 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 5, 2012 7:05:47 PM PST
Jack Vix says:
There is an analogy that appears at first to make sense to argue against this.

"God would not necessarily force you to do anything, it's simply the choice you made and he knew about it. It's like when you watch a movie for the second time, you are not forcing the actors to make the choices you know they will make."

However, this explanation is short sighted as God knows even the causal events that the laws would inevitably complexify into making. He cannot start these laws with full knowledge of this and not be 100% responsible. He has omni-SCIENCE he knows every molecules action in the chain of causality according to all the laws he made precisely as they are. So the analogy of the movie is incorrect because God would necessarily need to control everything(omnipotence), in his creation of the laws and knowledge of the outcome.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2012 6:16:24 PM PST
'probabilist says:
Hi, Joe -

How does this apply to the Cthaeh?

'prob

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2012 6:48:46 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 6, 2012 6:50:34 PM PST
Ashwood says:
Jack Vix says: So the analogy of the movie is incorrect because God would necessarily need to control everything(omnipotence), in his creation of the laws and knowledge of the outcome.

Ash : Let's take it down a notch. Hypothetically, I have the ability to predict the next 10 minutes in a 50 meter radius of my location. I know that if I put a $20 dollar tip on a specific place on my table, the waitress is going to knock over a glass of water reaching for it. If I put my tip there, am I removing the free will of the waitress just because I know what is going to happen?

How about if I am only 99% certain it will happen?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2012 7:27:19 PM PST
Jack Vix says:
Slightly different in that you're involving your own actions, but you're just reiterating the same mistake as the movie analogy. God's not an observer, he's the creator of the laws which eventually gave rise through causality to that outcome. He would need to know that this would occur or he is not omniscient. If He is omniscient and not responsible then he necessarily cannot be omnipotent. Which brings up the question of whether He would even have any choice but to create things the way they are.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2012 7:59:57 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 6, 2012 8:29:59 PM PST
Ashwood says:
I'm not an observer either. I deliberately cause her to knock over that glass of water, which I can do with 100% certainty due to my foreknowledge.

What does it matter if the starting point of my actions is a restaurant that is already there or an empty void where I must construct a universe in which a restaurant will eventually be built.

If my foreknowledge and responsibility for her knocking over the glass of water doesn't negate her free will in taking that one action, then why would it be different if my foreknowledge and responsibly encompassed every action?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2012 8:51:05 PM PST
Jack Vix says:
Well, no. Free will is a completely incoherent notion. Let's add a layer of regress to this to demonstrate. Let's say I was there watching you in this scenario. I also had the same ability to see the future for 10 minutes, only 5 minutes before you could. I knew that you would put the bill in the right place to cause the event, that is if the water was in a particular spot on the table. However, it is currently placed far enough away that such an event wouldn't happen. Now, you go to the bathroom for a bit, and I walk by and move it to it's proper location for you to make the choice.

So, in this case, I decided to produce the necessary circumstances to cause you to make your choice to cause her to make her choice... You see the hilarity of this regress? The circumstances must be as they are and you must do as you will in whatever circumstance there is. Freedom comes into play nowhere. You can choose, but you can't choose what you choose. This is why we are subjective, we are subject to our nature. We are merely observers. We are comprised of biomolecules that interact according to the laws of physics and chemistry. My choice to make you choose to make her choose was what I had the will to do in the circumstances based on my nature and environment.

The difference of starting it all is clear, we had no ultimate control over the prior circumstances that gave rise to our choices. God decided to make everything as it is from begin to end and we are merely subsequent pawns in his plan, like I was in making the waitress knock over the water. You must do as you will, so it brings up the question of whether God could do anything other than what He does.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2012 9:31:23 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 6, 2012 9:31:45 PM PST
Ashwood says:
Jack Vix says: You must do as you will, so it brings up the question of whether God could do anything other than what He does.

Ash : Just like God, I do what I want to do. Yes, what I will want to do is predictable if you know precisely my exact nature and the circumstances I am in, but saying that I (or God) have no free will unless we can do what we don't want to do is a bit odd.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2012 9:46:47 PM PST
Jack Vix says:
Then the word free will is meaningless. There's nothing free about that. You have no choice but to do what you want.

If you want a burrito rather than a pizza for dinner, you cannot choose to want a pizza more, you are subject to your whim. It's not free at all. You must do what you will. If you don't like strawberry icecream and want chocolate, you cannot choose to like strawberry instead.

I didn't choose to have the will to say this, it's simply what I had the will to say.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2012 11:31:43 PM PST
Ashwood says:
Jack Vix says: Then the word free will is meaningless. There's nothing free about that. You have no choice but to do what you want.

Ash : My choices/desires flow from my nature and the circumstances I find myself in. I consider that free will (or at least close enough for government work). If you don't consider that sufficient could you describe what having actual free will would look like?

Posted on Nov 6, 2012 11:50:28 PM PST
Dean says:
Since free will does exist, by logical extension God does not. Problem solved. That was quick, now lets move on to something important.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 6:25:11 AM PST
Mickey says:
I believe you are correct. But, I don't have a problem with free will - we do have some freedom to make choices - until it's offered as an excuse for eternal damnation: "God doesn't send people to hell, they choose to go there." That's just a hollow excuse for an evil religion, and it needs to be exposed as both evil and illogical.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 6:49:45 AM PST
quert says:
'prob, considering the power of the Ctheah, and applying it to any omniscient being, if that entity has the power to know all possible outcomes, does that mean it must necessarily choose the direction of all or even any events? If that entity operates under a laissez faire policy, that would preserve free will, even though all possibilities are known.

Posted on Nov 7, 2012 7:15:23 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 7, 2012 7:16:12 AM PST
Lessfatman says:
Trying to approach the existence of a deity or the extent of the freedom of the human mind through verbal acrobatics only, with no data coming outside of introspection, is doomed to a failure.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 9:24:03 AM PST
Jack Vix says:
No, I couldn't describe free will because it's an incoherent notion. There is only will.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 9:53:29 AM PST
Ashwood says:
Fatman says: Trying to approach the existence of a deity or the extent of the freedom of the human mind through verbal acrobatics only, with no data coming outside of introspection, is doomed to a failure.

Ash : My entering the Boston Marathon is doomed to failure, but only if I limit myself to the single goal of winning the race. If my goals include getting some exercise, stretching my limits, and meeting new people then entering the Boston Marathon will be a rousing success.

No one here expects to definitively solve the conundrum of free will or God, but we can explore our own beliefs, bounce them off other people to check for flaws, and expose ourselves to different perspectives.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 10:05:21 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 7, 2012 11:47:35 AM PST
Jack Vix says:
There's really nothing to "solve". It's simply applying logic to mere asserted premises for which there is no reason to believe in the first place. It's no more a serious suggestion than saying we won't "solve" the interdimensional green orb conundrum. There's no reason to think there is anything needing solving, it's simply inscrutible and highly improbable speculation.

"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again." -Andre Gide

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 10:22:01 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 7, 2012 10:32:49 AM PST
Ashwood says:
Jack Vix says: There's really nothing to "solve". It's simply applying logic to mere asserted premises for which there is no reason to believe in the first place.

Ash : Yes, that is why I called it a conundrum (riddle) instead of a "crisis".

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 11:49:51 AM PST
Jack Vix says:
That's not the point. But fine, I edited it.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 1:52:39 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 7, 2012 2:02:31 PM PST
Ashwood says:
Jack Vix says: That's not the point.

Ash : So what is the point, that the question of whether free will exists doesn't need to be solved? As I said merely exploring the question serves a purpose even if we can't reach a final answer.

People are going to claim that Free Will/God/etc exist, so working out what exactly is meant by those terms is useful whether you want to refute or champion them.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 2:39:02 PM PST
Jack Vix says:
Such nebulous abstractions can't be talked about in the sense of "figuring them out", there's nothing to solve, there's no substance to it. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, ideas must be distinct before reason can act on them. Talking of ill-defined incoherent concepts isn't solving anything or alluding to anything actual. The issue isn't solving it, it's that they are even claimed in the first place without justification.

To say that people will claim it anyway isn't a cogent argument for it being done.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 2:31:23 AM PST
Lessfatman says:
Trying to enter the Boston Marathon without knowing where Boston is?
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
1273 19 hours ago
Is Internal Religious Experience Proof of Anything? 635 3 minutes ago
The War on Wonen Continues Apace 6606 3 minutes ago
God: The Evidence 857 8 minutes ago
Why are Creationists laughing at Evolution? 59 13 minutes ago
God's Presence 3712 14 minutes ago
What's happening with SSM in the post Prop 8 world? 2106 18 minutes ago
Let's Talk About Sex! (You know you can't help yourself!) 59 19 minutes ago
A Treatise on Cosmic Fire in 10 easy steps! 41 20 minutes ago
Merry Chanukah 2 25 minutes ago
Honesty 310 44 minutes ago
Is being a Mean Girl morally wrong? 405 49 minutes ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  24
Total posts:  117
Initial post:  Nov 5, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 13, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions