yguy

Preposterous? If you mean in comparison to what any of us can imagine, it certainly would...but God is both the ultimate Micromanager AND the ultimate big picture Guy.

Those weapons didn't just fire themselves, nor were the fruits of training brought forth without effort. You think it's no big deal, why don't you try defending a country surrounded by murderous enemies who outnumber your guys 200 to 1.

Nowhere357

I agree completely. The argument works for me. But then someone will say "god isn't limited by our understanding" or something like that (see one post above for example) and the back and forth leads nowhere.

Peace

Kevbo

I was trying to say that it might be possible to say that, if consciousness is some metaphysical "soul" thing that exists outside of the reality that was created by an omniscient god, then there can exist free will. However, since you point out that, if this god created everything, the mind, even non-physical, would fall under this category as well. I guess that point falls flat, not that I liked it anyhow.

I agree with you overall, that free will is definately not a strong argument either way, which is why I believe it is not a good reason to reject materialism in favor of an omniscient deity, or vice-versa. Given all the evidence, I definately deny the existence of any god that has been postulated except the Deist god, which exists outside of observation.

chant

hm, i've never understood the omniscience = determinism argument. i don't see what the causal link between the two is. God may know that i will take road x rather than road y. but how is this knowledge causal? in itself, i don't see that it is, any more than i cause my brother to eat rice crispies every morning by being aware that rice crispies is what he eats for breakfast every morning.

Nowhere357

Because if god says you will choose x, your decision is now predetermined, and free will is illusion.

Your brother may surprise you, and eat a muffin. He has free will.

Peace

chant

but there is a difference between (a) 'God says that i will choose road x' and (b) 'God knows that i will choose road x'. clearly my choice is determined in (a), but i don't see how it is determined in (b).

Nowhere357

How about "god says that she knows you will choose x".

You see (a) as a command, and (b) as a no-command. Why the difference?

The bottom line is this: if I have free will then
when the time comes I can choose either path. If god says/knows I will choose x, then when the time comes I no longer have the option of choosing either path - I MUST choose x, and so I have no free will.

chant

for case (a) it depends on what we mean by 'says'. if 'says' is used merely as an expression of knowledge, then the statement does not imply determinism for me. here 'God says that i will choose road X' is merely an observation made by God.

but if 'says' is used as an expression of will, in the 'Simon says' sense, where what God says i must do, then determinism is implied.

fundamentally, i don't see how God's knowledge about the choice that someone will make automatically strips the maker of that choice of their free will.

i still don't see any causal connection between God's knowledge about my choice and my making of that choice.

Nowhere357

The argument concerns the situation where god claims to know our choice, ahead of time.

Because if god knows that I will choose x, BEFORE I HAVE DECIDED, then when I finally do decide, what are my choices? Hmm, I can choose either x or y, correct? No, I cannot. I MUST choose x. If I choose y, then god was wrong!

If I must choose x, I have no free will.

Chant, the problem is that you have pre-supposed that god is omniscient. The argument is proof that if god is omniscient, then free will does not exist.

We know we have free will.

Therefore, if god exists, she CANNOT be omniscient.

Well, I tried.

chant

hmmmmmm

but God isn't forcing me to choose X rather than Y, he's just aware of which choice i'm going to make.

say i have a time machine. i can hop into the future and read the next reply to this post. i can 'know' the next reply that's going to be written on this thread. in doing so, i haven't participated in any causal way in what is going to be written. i haven't forced the writer of the next post to write what they will write rather than something else. i'm just aware of what it's going to be before they write it.