Majody

I've been thinking about the whole problem of free will. Some argue that we cannot have free will IF God is truly omniscient. They say that if we have free will, God cannot know what we will choose, therefore he does not know everything, and cannot exist. But I propose this:

Say you have two choices, A and B. If you choose A, then you now have two more options, 1 and 2. If you choose B, you have two different options, 3 and 4. This continues, and makes sort of a "tree" I guess. It would look like this:


.....A.................B
.../...\............./...\
..1... 2...........3...4
./\ .../\ ........ /\.../\
a.b..c.d .......e.f..g.h

Now, could it be that God does not know WHICH choice we will make, but could know every possible outcome for those choices? He would know whether the path we chose was A-1-b or B-3-e, and so on and so forth. This would make there be an infinite number of "paths" or choices that we could make, but God would know all. If you see any problems with this, please let me know. Always trying to learn more. :banghead: :banghead:

~Cody

sandlewood

I think you end up with the same problem. God knows all the paths you might possibly take. But he doesn’t know which of those you will take. Right? So he can’t be omniscient because there is still something he doesn’t know.

Violent Messiah

This is actually called Openness Theology. Basically, it supposes that God knows all the possible coices we might make - but chooses not to know. Try google-izing it.

Anyway, 'm more inclined to believe that OMNISCIENCE does not include FOREKNOWLEDGE.

s5o8

Hi Majody

Omniscience would imply that this being would not just know the infinite possible outcomes, but also the outcome that actually occurs. This being would know the complete state of the universe at any point in time. In effect this being would not experience anything as a random event. IT would know the formula that determines state of every particle in the entire universe at any point in time.

We mere mortals experience random events, but the randomness we experience is due to the fact that we lack knowledge of causality of everyday events. The more we find out about the causality of everyday events the more we are able to predict them but because we would always lack complete knowledge it would remain predictions. This is however not the case for a being with complete knowledge, IT would know the future not just be able to predict it and know all the possible futures.

It does not matter that your decision tree has an infinite number possible routes what matters is that only one will occur in this reality and omniscience implies complete knowledge of that one realty, anything less and that god can not be omniscient and that omniscience implies no freewill. A dice cannot fall on the 1 and 6 simultaneously, not in this universe. IMO

Godless Wonder

Exactly what makes you so sure tht you do have free will? Please explain an experiment which you can perform which will have one outcome if you have free will, and a different outcome if you do not.

Any arguments based on the existence of free will do not prove anything, because your initial assumption is unfounded. If anything, scientific evidence to date leads one to strongly suspect thta there is no free will.

Stephen T-B

Point 1: Gods can be made to be or do whatever we want them to be or do. That's what is so good about them and why the idea of them has persisted for so long. They are not pinned down by logical necessities (I don't know what that means, but it sounds good) nor by the demands of reality.

Point 2: Re-read Godless Wonder's post.

sandlewood

There are a couple of problems with that in my mind. The first is prophesies. If God cannot see the future, then how can he make a prophesy? How can anyone? And if he can’t see the future, how does he know that everything he is doing will be for the best in the end? (Some people make this argument in defense of the problem of evil.)

The other problem is one of qualifying the meaning of omniscience. You can’t simply change the meaning until it fits how you want it. It no longer means “all knowing”. (“Hmm, if we just trim off the corners of this square peg, it will fit into this round hole.”)

Spenser

For arguments sake I’d be willing to accept a different definition of the word omniscience. Much like my reasons for accepting a differing definition of the word omnipotence, for example I’ll quote myself from another thread:



So I can see the idea of not knowing the future as something that is not possible therefore a logical contradiction. This one is a little harder to swallow for reasons I won’t yet go into, but if you want to argue a theist’s God you should go ahead and let them define it before arguing. However I am inclined to believe that very few theists would state that God doesn’t know the future.

This one theists could easily answer. Being omnipotent God would just have to make sure the prophesy came true when he said it would. I prophesize that tomorrow I will be getting on a plain headed to Australia. Tomorrow I will make damn sure I get to the airport on time so I can catch my flight (I’m really going BTW). Catch ya later…

Sylvan Wizard

And that is not omnipotence.
So for any argument about free will, all intial assumptions will be unfounded? I think that itself is an unfounded assumption.

It's my belief that free will arises as a direct result of consciousness. A simple creature like a flatworm has no brain. It behaves purely on instinct, merely reacting. It has no awareness or sense of self, and is a deterministic creature. We on the other hand are conscious, and have the power to manipulate our environment, and ourselves. We do have habits and behave in a largely deterministic fashion (more than most of us would like to admit), but we have the ability to change ourselves, our habits, and that which causes them. It is precisely because we are aware of ourselves and how we interact with our environment that we have this power.

JetBlckNewYr03

But wouldn't God making sure that event happens interfere with our free will?