If there is a god, can there be free will?

[BadPoison]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you're saying that if a God knows everything that will happen, then we actually have no say in the matter of what happens to us?

Sort of. I'm not arguing that you don't still make a choice. You still choose, as choosing is just another action. However, lets say that god knows everything you'll ever do. And sure, you'll make those choices, but god still knows what they'll be ahead of time. Now, lets say that god writes your entire life down in a book before you live it. So now, you're going through life thinking you have a choice in everything you do, when you're really acting out that book! So sure, you have a choice - but you always choose what god already knew you would choose.

I may know how my son will behave in a certain situation but he was still given the choice to act as he pleases.

Again, I see what you're saying, but I think that you having a very good idea of what your son will do isn't the same as an omniscient being knowing absolutely what your son will do.

I think another good analogy is the past. Everything has happened and there is no changing it. And if we went back in time and restarted it all over again it would repeat. Does that mean (with or without a god) that those before us had no freewill?

This is an interesting outlook. Do you think that the past would indeed play out exactly the same way as it already has (assuming we do not add any new variables) Or do you think there could be a certain amount of chance that might influence certain things. I wouldn't know, but it's fun to think about.

[Sophus]

So sure, you have a choice - but you always choose what god already knew you would choose.

I don't see how someone knowing what you will choose renders freewill useless. The idea of someone who always knows what you will choose may not be pleasant but it wouldn't affect whether or not freewill exists. Psychologically, it may give us this feeling that we cannot rebel by doing something unexpected, giving us the sense of oppression and limitation in our options. But through the critique of reason I think we find that freewill itself is still present, regardless of how restrained we may feel. The only way it could not be is if something truly controlled or limited our options.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I think you are basing this judgment off of that feeling.

Again, I see what you're saying, but I think that you having a very good idea of what your son will do isn't the same as an omniscient being knowing absolutely what your son will do.

This kind of goes back to what I said before about how I can be absolutely sure of something and still run the risk of being wrong. With that psychological state of mind, even without an unfailing knowledge I'm still just as certain as I would be if I were omniscient. I still know, even if I'm stupid and arrogant for thinking I could not be wrong.
The world is but what the mind makes it and if my mind genuinely believes something it does not mean that it must logically stand up to everyone else. Just look at theists and atheists. Some in both parties know that there is or isn't a god. Even though you and I may conclude there is at least a 0.0000000001% that there is a god, it won't shrink their egotism or convince them that they might just be wrong.
Do you know 2 + 2 = 4? Judging by your suggestion even with the tool of reason we cannot be absolutely certain that 2 + 2 brings us to 4 because we are not omniscient. However, psychologically, I (and I presume you too) treat the axiom that 2 + 2 = 4 as a fact, just as though we were 100% sure of it.

This is an interesting outlook. Do you think that the past would indeed play out exactly the same way as it already has (assuming we do not add any new variables) Or do you think there could be a certain amount of chance that might influence certain things. I wouldn't know, but it's fun to think about.

If we rewind without any added variables then I see no reason to think that it wouldn't all happen again exactly as it did before. I believe something different would have to happen in order for a different result to occur. Of course we have never actually rewound time before, nor will we ever, so one cannot be certain. But this is my hypothesis judging by our experiments conducted in what we have once experienced as the present. And since rewound time would simply be a replay of the present, it makes sense that these observations would hold true. (Observations being that it takes a new or altered variable to achieve alternate outcome)

[bowmore]

I often see the misconception that omnsicience actively precludes free will.

Omniscience requires all coordinates in spacetime (and every other dimension if they exist) to be fixed. That is, the future is fixed.

But a fixed future rules out the notion that we have any choice at all.

My argument for the incompatibility of omniscience and free will goes like this :

1) if omniscience is possible then the future is fixed. (premise)
2) if free will is possible then the future is not fixed. (premise)
3) if the future is fixed then free will is impossible. (from 2)
4) if omniscience is possible then free will is impossible (from 1 and 3)

[curiosityandthecat]

I think I mentioned this in another thread... can't remember which one, though.

The way it was explained to me by an old Philosophy professor I had, was like this: think of existence like a Choose Your Own Adventure book with an infinite number of "threads." An omniscient god could know all those threads, where they lead, where those subsequent threads lead, et cetera, ad infinitum. So, having knowledge of all possible threads, their outcomes, etc, does not actually preclude omniscience. It's like quantum mechanics: there's the fuzzy cloud of possibility until you check on the particle, at which point it snaps into a single position. Until that point, it's quite literally at every point in that field, so it's logically sound to say that, as long as you know the positions in the field, you know where the particle is at all times.

However, that brings up the issue of omnipotence and "personal investment", and whether or not that god (assuming the Judeo-Christian god's interest in souls and divine plan) actually nudges the threads in one certain way, or even just limits them to a certain theme. If so, then that influence over not the choices but the range of choices does impact free will, as those that are making the free choices don't have a "full deck" to play with, if you will.

[bowmore]

The way it was explained to me by an old Philosophy professor I had, was like this: think of existence like a Choose Your Own Adventure book with an infinite number of "threads." An omniscient god could know all those threads, where they lead, where those subsequent threads lead, et cetera, ad infinitum. So, having knowledge of all possible threads, their outcomes, etc, does not actually preclude omniscience. It's like quantum mechanics: there's the fuzzy cloud of possibility until you check on the particle, at which point it snaps into a single position. Until that point, it's quite literally at every point in that field, so it's logically sound to say that, as long as you know the positions in the field, you know where the particle is at all times.

A being that knew all possible threads, but not which ones would actually be taken, would not know everything. Therefore such a god would not rightly be called omniscient.

[curiosityandthecat]

A being that knew all possible threads, but not which ones would actually be taken, would not know everything. Therefore such a god would not rightly be called omniscient.

Well, yeah, I think the whole idea of omniscence is crap, too. Just throwing that out there.  

[Wechtlein Uns]

I'm standing by the experiments in vienna that showed that all possible actions do exist.

An omniscient god would know all possible actions, rather, all the threads of the "choose your own story" book. I think, however, that the only difference is that all the threads actually happen. put it this way:

In a choose your own story book, you get the illusion that you are choosing a path all your own, and in a way, you are. But all the other threads and paths don't "not happen" because of the paths you chose. Just like einstein proved that only Space time as a whole is real, and not the individual slices that make up individual experience, all actions as a whole still exist, regardless of which ones you choose. In fact, it could be said that you are actually choosing all of them, seeing as how they all exist in the same sense as you exist right now.

So, in a sense, you're not actually choosing a particular outcome to the exclusion of all others. You are choosing a particular outcome to the Inclusion of all others. Does this mean that we have free will? I don't know. But it does mean that an omniscient god isn't necesarily anathema to the concept.

[perspective]

maybe I can bring something to this argument. I am a Christian, so I will bring that view point to the answer. I think you are confussing knowledge with dictation. Knowledge of something doesn't make it happen. God is not bound by time so He is in all places and all times. So he knows what is happening, what has happened, and what will happen, but that in no way forces the connection that he makes things happen.

[BadPoison]

Perspective - I'm not sure that you follow the idea of omniscience - and what it implies about a fixed future. For your god to fit the consept you just posted, He could not be omniscient.

[Sophus]

Perspective - I'm not sure that you follow the idea of omniscience - and what it implies about a fixed future. For your god to fit the consept you just posted, He could not be omniscient.

Foreknowledge in no way means that what will occur is "fixed." The only thing that is fixed is the past but even those before us had freewill.

[BadPoison]

Perspective - I'm not sure that you follow the idea of omniscience - and what it implies about a fixed future. For your god to fit the consept you just posted, He could not be omniscient.

Foreknowledge in no way means that what will occur is "fixed." The only thing that is fixed is the past but even those before us had freewill.

This is because your definition of "free-will" means "able to make choices."
If that is what you're arguing for, then I would say we agree.

But really it's more complex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

After I started this thread I did some more looking around on the net and as Wechtlein Uns stated earlier the topic has been debated to death. I'm going to continue to look into the different arguments, as I find it interesting.

But Sophus, I am losing the stomach of debating a point based on a premise that I don't think is likely real anyways.

[Sophus]

But Sophus, I am losing the stomach of debating a point based on a premise that I don't think is likely real anyways.

Forgive my argumentative idiosyncrasy.  

This is because your definition of "free-will" means "able to make choices."
If that is what you're arguing for, then I would say we agree.

I hate semantics in debate. Let's agree to disagree. (Eh... compromise is such a dirty word).

[bowmore]

Foreknowledge in no way means that what will occur is "fixed." The only thing that is fixed is the past but even those before us had freewill.

I maintain that in order to be able to know the future it must be fixed.

On a lesser note, I don't think free will exists, exactly because I think the future is fixed.

[BadPoison]

Foreknowledge in no way means that what will occur is "fixed." The only thing that is fixed is the past but even those before us had freewill.

I maintain that in order to be able to know the future it must be fixed.

On a lesser note, I don't think free will exists, exactly because I think the future is fixed.

I'm curious as to why you came to the conclusion that the future is fixed. Is it because of observations of quantum mechanics that W.U. pointed out? I still haven't had an opportunity to look into this - it was news to me.

[bowmore]

Foreknowledge in no way means that what will occur is "fixed." The only thing that is fixed is the past but even those before us had freewill.

I maintain that in order to be able to know the future it must be fixed.

On a lesser note, I don't think free will exists, exactly because I think the future is fixed.

I'm curious as to why you came to the conclusion that the future is fixed. Is it because of observations of quantum mechanics that W.U. pointed out? I still haven't had an opportunity to look into this - it was news to me.

No rather based on Einstein's relativity.

See this article for instance.

I'll quote from it :

The most straightforward conclusion is that both past and future are fixed.

.

Occam's razor really.