Happy Atheist Forum

I'll be the first to admit I haven't really looked into many of the different arguments for and against free-will, though in light of recent discussion I'm very interested in the idea

_____________________
I guess this question really refers to the Abrahamic god -

But quite simply, if there is a god that is omniscient could there really be a such thing as free-will?

If omniscient means that an entity has infinite knowledge of the past, present, and future how could any actions anyone takes be truly of their own choice? God has knowledge of everything that happens, and everything that could happen - yet he still knows what will actually happen... yet we have free-will? I see this logic as leading to some sort of paradox. I guess the argument could be made that a god knows all of the possible outcomes, but not what choices we will ultimately make - but I guess this wouldn't be true omniscience.

So back to the original question - If an omniscient god exists (or anything omniscient for that matter) can there truly be free-will?

Good topic. This really depends on one's definition of omniscience (since it's only a theoretical state).

If we're assuming that omniscience means that there is only one future, then free will doesn't exist. If we assume that omniscience means knowing the multiple outcomes of every decision, free will could still exist. Still, the second would mean that a supreme being wouldn't know what decision an individual might make, and I suspect most people would say that's not omniscience.

Okay -
So if god knows every possible outcome but not what will actually be chosen, wouldn't he still be able to do whatever he needed to help direct your choices (making the assumption he could influence the physical universe) knowing exactly how to influence you to make the choice he's laid out for you. If he has a goal or place he would like to arrive at, wouldn't his knowledge still require him to make that the most likely out come? In which case, we would still be puppets and without any real free-will?

Interference is probably something to be attributed to omnipotence. Omniscience is passive.

Quote from: "Willravel"Interference is probably something to be attributed to omnipotence. Omniscience is passive.

I understand that.

I had another thought - wouldn't infinite knowledge of the past and present lead one to knowledge of the future?

This would circumvent the previous argument, leading us back to where we began.

Infinite knowledge of past and present wouldn't necessarily mean perfect foresight. Sure, it would help, but omniscience would suggest absolute knowledge. Knowledge of past and present would still mean guessing as to what comes next.

Woah woah woah! Hold the phone there. This debate has been argued to death, and there's been a very big tug of war on both sides. But here's something new:

Never mind God. Quantumly speaking, all quantum particles exist in two states: cloud states, which are an accumulation of all possible states, and a point-like state, which is just one of many. Scientists are just now figuring out that When a quantum particle interacts with another particle, the old notion of a state being randomly picked is wrong. Experiments in vienna showed that, in essense, all possible states[/i] unfold into the pointlike state. It isn't that one state is being randomly "chosen", but that there, I can put it no more gently, a myriad of classical realities into which all the possible choices each go to. These classical realities seems to all exist in the same space, separated only by an extremely thin quantum viel. In essense, when you're looking at a particle in cloud state, you're actually looking at all classical realities. Whereas when you're looking at a particle in it's particle state, you're only looking at one of the many, infinite classical realities.

Drawing an obvious conclusion into the macro sized world, it would seem that all possible actions of everything all play out. You will murder your father. You will have sex with a monkey. You will play baseball. All the possible outcomes of the universe DO happen.

When you talk about free will, you're relying on the assumption that there's a choice to be made, and asking if "We" really have control over it. The truth which quanum physics is showing is that there is no choice. And of course, modern science long ago dismantled any half-baked notions that there is a "We", am I correct?

It would seem that, to quote A space Oddysey, The Truth is much more weirder than expected.

^Are you saying that scientists have proven that alternate realities exist?  That seems a bit far fetched to me.

Technically, they are not alternate realities. They all exist right here, right now. The reason we can not move through them, however, is because we are so big and our senses aren't...what's the word? Focused enough? Strong enough? Ah. Accurate enough. Apparently if our senses were trillions of times more accurate than they actually are, then we would be able to experience multiple causalities.

It's not like that tv show, "Sliders", where You enter a portal and go to another universe. The universe simply consists of all possible actions and representations that are possible.

Yes, because according to them although He is omnipotent there are certain things that He chooses not to do since he has such a loving personality.

Quote from: "BadPoison"Okay -
So if god knows every possible outcome but not what will actually be chosen, wouldn't he still be able to do whatever he needed to help direct your choices (making the assumption he could influence the physical universe) knowing exactly how to influence you to make the choice he's laid out for you. If he has a goal or place he would like to arrive at, wouldn't his knowledge still require him to make that the most likely out come? In which case, we would still be puppets and without any real free-will?

Omniscience (if it existed) would know the choices you would make and it wouldn't mean that freewill doesn't exist. Freewill is just the freedom to make a choice. Say I know your favorite color is blue. If I ask you if you would prefer the blue sweater or the red one I know which you'll pick. Even though I knew what you would choose that doesn't mean that you did not have the freewill to pick which sweater you wanted.

You're welcome Titan...

I disagree Sophus-

If god knows exactly what I'm going to choose before I choose, then do I really have a choice? I don't think so - sure, I may choose to debate the alternatives in my head, but ultimately I will make a decision which you have just said god already knew what I would decide. In fact, god already knew of my decision to choose to debate the alternatives in my head before I even began! I may think I have free will, but by this logic, I don't. I may be unpredictable - but this still doesn't prove free-will.

Quote from: "Sophus"If I ask you if you would prefer the blue sweater or the red one I know which you'll pick. Even though I knew what you would choose that doesn't mean that you did not have the freewill to pick which sweater you wanted.

The reason I think this is a poor example is because you truly didn't know what sweater I would want. You had a pretty good idea of what I would most probably choose based on what you can extrapolate from what you know about me, but you don't know without a doubt that I will pick the sweater you think I will - at least, not in the way an omniscient being would.

Quote from: "BadPoison"

Quote from: "Sophus"If I ask you if you would prefer the blue sweater or the red one I know which you'll pick. Even though I knew what you would choose that doesn't mean that you did not have the freewill to pick which sweater you wanted.

The reason I think this is a poor example is because you truly didn't know what sweater I would want. You had a pretty good idea of what I would most probably choose based on what you can extrapolate from what you know about me, but you don't know without a doubt that I will pick the sweater you think I will - at least, not in the way an omniscient being would.

We can know something and still be wrong about it. I'll use theists as my prime example. The only difference between my knowing and that of what an omniscient beings would be is that there is a possibility I'm wrong. However we would both be 100% certain that we're right. It might not be wise on my half to not acknowledge that I could be wrong, but nonetheless our minds would be equal in confidence. Look to psychology if my word is not good enough for you.

You seem ignorant as to what freewill is.

Freewill:
1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.


So just because somebody knows what you will do takes away your power to make a choice? I've never heard an argument more absurd than that we don't have freewill.

Hmm-

Maybe I'm not explaining the argument well...

And for the record, it really does sound absurd because it is - But it's only an absurd thought because we are keeping the idea of an omniscient being in play. (Which I would guess you and I both know is absurd)

I'll have to think about how to restate what I'm trying to get at.

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

Quote from: "Sophus"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.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteI 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.

Quote from: "BadPoison"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.

QuoteAgain, 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.

QuoteThis 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)

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)

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.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"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.

Quote from: "bowmore"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.  

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "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 (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.

Quote from: "BadPoison"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.  

QuoteThis 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).

Quote from: "Sophus"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.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Sophus"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.

Quote from: "BadPoison"

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Sophus"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 (http://www.nikhef.nl/pub/services/biblio/bib_KR/sciam14327034.pdf) for instance.

I'll quote from it :

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

.

Occam's razor really.

Excellent article. Thanks for posting this.

There were several points made by the author I hadn't considered.

Quote from: "BadPoison"Excellent article. Thanks for posting this.

Glad you liked it.

Quote from: "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.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that if you know something is going to happen, it'll happen. Simply because if it didn't, did you really know?

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"

Quote from: "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.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that if you know something is going to happen, it'll happen. Simply because if it didn't, did you really know?

I believe he would agree with you there, but that would not mean that god is dictating what will happen simply because he knows it. It's foreknowledge of another's volition. Key word: volition. They were still making the choice. Like I said, we have complete knowledge of the choices of those in the past. Would that mean they didn't have freewill? Knowing is not dictating.

Quote from: "Sophus"Knowing is not dictating.

I agree, it just doesn't solve the incompatibility.

Quote from: "bowmore"I agree, it just doesn't solve the incompatibility.

You're really not making sense now. Hasn't your argument thus far been that if there is an omniscient God then there is no freewill?

In spite of what Wikipedia has to say, freewill can be boiled down rather simply. Are you making choices for yourself? For what reasons you make those choices are irrelevant so long as it is still your decision.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "bowmore"I agree, it just doesn't solve the incompatibility.

You're really not making sense now. Hasn't your argument thus far been that if there is an omniscient God then there is no freewill?

In spite of what Wikipedia has to say, freewill can be boiled down rather simply. Are you making choices for yourself? For what reasons you make those choices are irrelevant so long as it is still your decision.

But if every choice you're going to make is already decided then your choices can't be solely made internally. Another words, if something outside of myself knows every decision I will ever decide, then I can not have sole authority over my decisions. They would have to already have been decided.

A better way to state this might be that to god, we've already lived our lives, made our choices, and the end result has been ultimately decided. How is that free will?

I'm trying to demonstrate how if something external has complete foreknowledge of my actions even before I was born it's as if my life already played out - my free will be damned. And to the individual, of course he/she thinks they're making their own decisions, because in a very real way they are. You could attribute this to how our consciousness experiences time. The end result has just already happened to an omniscient being.

QuoteA better way to state this might be that to god, we've already lived our lives, made our choices, and the end result has been ultimately decided. How is that free will?

This is the exact same crux I was trying to make except it's not that it has been decided. It is set and unchangeable, yes. But no one other than ourselves made our decisions. He will have known our decisions in advance, but, as we've just agreed upon, that knowledge does not determine what they will be.

Your argument appears to contradict itself.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "bowmore"I agree, it just doesn't solve the incompatibility.

You're really not making sense now. Hasn't your argument thus far been that if there is an omniscient God then there is no freewill?

In spite of what Wikipedia has to say, freewill can be boiled down rather simply. Are you making choices for yourself? For what reasons you make those choices are irrelevant so long as it is still your decision.

If the future is fixed, omniscience is possible, but free will isn't.
If the future isn't fixed, free will is possible, but omniscience isn't.

I've never said it is the omniscience that dictates or that that is why free will is impossible.
It is the nature of the future which will allow one, and disallow the other.

That omniscience doesn't itself dictate how the future is fixed, is irrelevant.

Quote from: "bowmore"If the future is fixed, omniscience is possible, but free will isn't.
If the future isn't fixed, free will is possible, but omniscience isn't.

Omniscience could exist if the future is not fixed. "Fixed" would imply what? - one possible outcome? A result that could not change? Omniscience would know all possibilities but would know the one outcome that would take place. The foreseen outcome would support freewill without being subject to change as well because if one were to see into the future then it would be comparable to examining the past. The past is unchangeable.

QuoteThat omniscience doesn't itself dictate how the future is fixed, is irrelevant.

However by implication you have said that the existence of omniscience would affect the nature of future. All you did was add a middle man in your process of thinking omniscience dictates the future.

Quote from: "Sophus"Omniscience could exist if the future is not fixed.

I disagree  

Quote from: "Sophus""Fixed" would imply what? - one possible outcome? A result that could not change? Omniscience would know all possibilities but would know the one outcome that would take place.

How does this make for a future that is not fixed? If the one outcome that would take place is known, it is the only possible one. All other possible ones actually occurring instead of it, would render the knowledge faulty. That's what I call a fixed future, or a less than perfect knowledge.

Quote from: "bowmore"If the one outcome that would take place is known, it is the only possible one.... That's what I call a fixed future....

But that's just it. It's not that it is the only possible one. There are many that are possible. It would just be one that would actually occur.
This statement of yours seems to say that you do believe omniscience dictates.

QuoteHow does this make for a future that is not fixed?

That's all in the previous post. The past is fixed. The future isn't. By seeing into the future with omniscience you are actually looking into the fixed past which is our currently open-ended future.

Quote from: "Sophus"But that's just it. It's not that it is the only possible one. There are many that are possible. It would just be one that would actually occur.
This statement of yours seems to say that you do believe omniscience dictates.

Suppose at a point P in the future there are two possible choices (A and B), then that means the choice is not determined, if the choice is not determined, the actual choice cannot be known before P. If the choice is determined (let's say A) it can be known before P, but this invalidates B as a possibility. In other words the future is fixed to A.
I can see how you would call this dictated, but by no means is it needed that the omniscience itself dictates the choice. The omniscience only needs the know what is dictated.
So if omniscience doesn't dictate, it doesn't solve the incompatibility, because omniscience still needs a fixed future.

Quote from: "bowmore"So if omniscience doesn't dictate, it doesn't solve the incompatibility, because omniscience still needs a fixed future.

Right, this is exactly the same point I was getting at.

Quote from: "bowmore"So if omniscience doesn't dictate, it doesn't solve the incompatibility, because omniscience still needs a fixed future.

It's not a fixed future. There is no such thing. It is a fixed past. Remember this god fellow is suppose to live outside of time too.

Even if a future were fixed it doesn't render you unable to make your own choices. It's nonsense from every angle.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "bowmore"So if omniscience doesn't dictate, it doesn't solve the incompatibility, because omniscience still needs a fixed future.

It's not a fixed future. There is no such thing. It is a fixed past. Remember this god fellow is suppose to live outside of time too.

Even if a future were fixed it doesn't render you unable to make your own choices. It's nonsense from every angle.

You've shown that omniscience doesn't necessarily dictate a fixed future, but you have not shown how omniscience is possible without a fixed future. Show how this works. Thus far, you've made statements that aren't compatible.

You said:

QuoteIt's not a fixed future. There is no such thing. It is a fixed past. Remember this god fellow is suppose to live outside of time too.

I think this implies that not only is the past fixed, the future and the entire time line must be fixed. God knowing is dependent upon it being fixed. Otherwise he can't know.

"God living outside of time" doesn't support your notion that the future isn't fixed. In fact, it does the opposite.

Quote from: "BadPoison"I think this implies that not only is the past fixed, the future and the entire time line must be fixed. God knowing is dependent upon it being fixed. Otherwise he can't know.

Again, all in previous statements:

Quote...if one were to see into the future then it would be comparable to examining the past.

Just because this present is our present doesn't mean it couldn't be his past. If he lives outside of time and/or lives in past present and future and whatnot, then the argument that he is seeing into the future is futile.

All in all we're carrying this silly topic on probably longer than it deserves. The theistic aspects of it are too ridiculous to even be considered logically. I think we can all agree there is no god and there is freewill.

[quote/]
All in all we're carrying this silly topic on probably longer than it deserves. The theistic aspects of it are too ridiculous to even be considered logically. I think we can all agree there is no god and there is freewill.[/quote]
I'll agree that the theistic aspects of this discussion are ridiculous.

However, god's aside, the article Bowmore linked to earlier about relativity and a fixed future are still intriguing to contemplate. Of course, that is an entirely different argument!

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "bowmore"So if omniscience doesn't dictate, it doesn't solve the incompatibility, because omniscience still needs a fixed future.

It's not a fixed future. There is no such thing. It is a fixed past. Remember this god fellow is suppose to live outside of time too.

Even if a future were fixed it doesn't render you unable to make your own choices. It's nonsense from every angle.

That's just it. God, existing outside of time, knows all of time, to him every point in time is fixed. It is us that perceive the future as unknown, and therefore interpret it as not fixed. For the god fellow there is no difference between past, present and future.
If our future is fixed, there are no choices to be made. That means that, if free will is the ability to make choices freely, a fixed future precludes free will. The perception that we have free will, is then equally wrong as the perception that the future is not fixed.

You'll note that apparently if you want to move your arm you can move your arm, and that therefore you have some control over how the future is laid out. You don't however, because if the future is fixed, what you will is equally fixed as what you do.

Quote from: "Sophus"Just because this present is our present doesn't mean it couldn't be his past. If he lives outside of time and/or lives in past present and future and whatnot, then the argument that he is seeing into the future is futile.

He sees what is the future to us.

Quote from: "Sophus"All in all we're carrying this silly topic on probably longer than it deserves. The theistic aspects of it are too ridiculous to even be considered logically. I think we can all agree there is no god and there is freewill.

Ehm, no. There is no god, and there is no free will. (as I believe the future is fixed).

Quote from: "bowmore"He sees what is the future to us.

Precisely my point.

QuoteEhm, no. There is no god, and there is no free will. (as I believe the future is fixed).

You're under that psychological impression that just because the future will have one outcome man is not free to disobey that result if he pleases. However, man will wrought the future with his volitions (or lack of).

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "bowmore"He sees what is the future to us.

Precisely my point.

I felt we agreed here indeed.

Quote from: "Sophus"

QuoteEhm, no. There is no god, and there is no free will. (as I believe the future is fixed).

You're under that psychological impression that just because the future will have one outcome man is not free to disobey that result if he pleases. However, man will wrought the future with his volitions (or lack of).

It is by no means psychological. My opinion has it's base in science. I've linked to this article (http://www.nikhef.nl/pub/services/biblio/bib_KR/sciam14327034.pdf) earlier in the thread, add to this, that I am a naturalist, I can only come to the conclusion I have come to. I acknowledge that there are certain definitions of free will that can operate in this setting (e.g. Plantinga's), but not mine, nor yours.

Let's do what we should have started off doing.    In your own words please define freewill.

Quote from: "Sophus"Let's do what we should have started off doing.    In your own words please define freewill.

Free will is the ability to make choices, free from other determinants.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Sophus"Let's do what we should have started off doing.    In your own words please define freewill.

Free will is the ability to make choices, free from other determinants.

Exactly, and the perception of being able to make your own choices does not refute the possibility of there still being an external determinant.

We all perceive the ability to make our own choices.

We do make our own choices. The only determinant is ourselves. Although we'll probably never see eye to eye on that so I suspect the debate will die here.

Quote from: "Sophus"We do make our own choices. The only determinant is ourselves. Although we'll probably never see eye to eye on that so I suspect the debate will die here.

We may indeed be forced to agree to disagree.

I just don't understand how you can posit ourselves as a determinant free from other determinants knowing that we exist within the time that is fixed. i.e. a determined determinant is not free in my opinion.

WEll like I said I don't think it's fixed.

Quote from: "Sophus"WEll like I said I don't think it's fixed.

Ok. We disagree there.

But what I fail to understand is how you think that even a fixed future would allow for free will. Or perhaps that's not something you've asserted, and then I must've misunderstood you at some point.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Sophus"WEll like I said I don't think it's fixed.

Ok. We disagree there.

But what I fail to understand is how you think that even a fixed future would allow for free will. Or perhaps that's not something you've asserted, and then I must've misunderstood you at some point.

The original post stated the premise was if omniscience existed could there be free will. The majority of our arguments originally were operating with the understanding of a fixed future (as a premise) or so I thought...

If Sophus were to say "The future is not fixed, therefore we have free will. If the future is fixed, we can not have free will" then I would agree. But it's not quite what I'm hearing you say, Sophus.

We can have another discussion about timelines and their static/dynamic properties  

I was presenting the argument from several possibilities because I think it's false from every angle.  

Quote from: "Sophus"I was presenting the argument from several possibilities because I think it's false from every angle.  

Ok. Then I personally see no more reason to debate at this point.

Until the next.

I do not think free will is compatible with any rational, material Universe.  As for 'god', I have no comment, since I do not think the word means anything.

Quote from: "AnnaM"I do not think free will is compatible with any rational, material Universe.  As for 'god', I have no comment, since I do not think the word means anything.

Oh snap!

And why do you come to that conclusion, AnnaM?

Where do you see free will as not being compatible with a 'material universe.'

Quote from: "BadPoison"

Quote from: "AnnaM"I do not think free will is compatible with any rational, material Universe.  As for 'god', I have no comment, since I do not think the word means anything.

Oh snap!

And why do you come to that conclusion, AnnaM?

Where do you see free will as not being compatible with a 'material universe.'

I thought you were on her side?

Well, I'm not on anyone's side -

And while her conclusion seems compatible with my own, I would still be interested in someone else's reasoning (and even debating the method)

Quote from: "BadPoison"Well, I'm not on anyone's side -

And while her conclusion seems compatible with my own, I would still be interested in someone else's reasoning (and even debating the method)

Free-will vs. god? If there is an omniscient being (omniscient is derived from the latin word omnisciens and scire to know), than I would agree with bowmore on this:

QuoteHe sees what is the future to us.

If omniscient means 'to know', and there is knowledge of our futures, how does this really equate to free will? Decisions that I choose to make day to day are outcomes of experiences that have affected what I choose. If god knows what we're going to be doing from one minute to the next, or there is some pre-ordained destiny for us, where have our choices in the present been affected by god and the knowledge of our futures? Furthermore, by accepting there is an omniscient being, you've committed to accepting that it is truth. Accepting it or not, the decision is still free will.

Quote from: "thirteen31"Free-will vs. god? If there is an omniscient being (omniscient is derived from the latin word omnisciens and scire to know), than I would agree with bowmore on this:

QuoteHe sees what is the future to us.

If omniscient means 'to know', and there is knowledge of our futures, how does this really equate to free will? Decisions that I choose to make day to day are outcomes of experiences that have affected what I choose. If god knows what we're going to be doing from one minute to the next, or there is some pre-ordained destiny for us, where have our choices in the present been affected by god and the knowledge of our futures? Furthermore, by accepting there is an omniscient being, you've committed to accepting that it is truth. Accepting it or not, the decision is still free will.

In my opinion the confusion comes from the observation that our will is a determinant in what the future is. I do not dispute this. Claiming that our will is free comes down to claiming it is itself not determined by other determinants. As our will exists within time, it must be fixed for omniscience to be possible. If our will is fixed, it is not free.

Quote from: "BadPoison"Well, I'm not on anyone's side -

And while her conclusion seems compatible with my own, I would still be interested in someone else's reasoning (and even debating the method)

If a thing exists it has properties, its existence is these properties.  These properties must be definite, that is, specific, because if a thing's properties were not specific then it would cease to be something in particular and would be nothing in particular, and could not be said to exist at all.  Ergo, everything behaves according to strict determinism according to its specific properties.  The proof of determinism has long been known, all revolts against reason not withstanding.

Quote from: "AnnaM"If a thing exists it has properties, its existence is these properties.

Disagree : reality exists independent of our description of it.

Quote from: "AnnaM"These properties must be definite, that is, specific, because if a thing's properties were not specific then it would cease to be something in particular and would be nothing in particular, and could not be said to exist at all.

Particles on the quantum level have properties that can be indefinite. Would you say these don't exist?

Quote from: "AnnaM"Ergo, everything behaves according to strict determinism according to its specific properties.

This also fails on the quantum level.

QuoteParticles on the quantum level have properties that can be indefinite. Would you say these don't exist?

Unjustified metaphysical conclusions drawn from a non-specific (and known to be inaccurate) mathematical model which, by the way, can and has been interpreted in a fully deterministic fashion (Richard Feynman, for example).  Non-determinism is non-sense.  Nothing could ever be 'demonstrated' to be excepted from causation, and causation is always strict (else there is no 'cause' proper).  Either reality is deterministic, or there is no reality.

Scientific models do not describe the Universe, they give us a method of calculating probabilities.  Of course they aren't strictly deterministic in many cases, as neither our knowledge nor powers of observation are infinite.  But to suggest that things are not really deterministic is to undermine science altogether.

Quote from: "BadPoison"But quite simply, if there is a god that is omniscient could there really be a such thing as free-will?

Actually not,
Human don't have an absolute free-will
But as God is outside the Universe, there is no way to know how he do things, we can only know from our experience inside this universe
So outside this universe only logic applies, not our observations

Creation is nothing we can know, God created us with some sort of free-will but it is not full, at the same time it is justice to be judged by our deeds, there is no way to know how those things work

Those things can not be used as a refutation for God, as it is logical to be unknown

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "BadPoison"But quite simply, if there is a god that is omniscient could there really be a such thing as free-will?

Actually not,
Human don't have an absolute free-will
But as God is outside the Universe, there is no way to know how he do things, we can only know from our experience inside this universe
So outside this universe only logic applies, not our observations

Creation is nothing we can know, God created us with some sort of free-will but it is not full, at the same time it is justice to be judged by our deeds, there is no way to know how those things work

Those things can not be used as a refutation for God, as it is logical to be unknown

I see ... so outside the universe (a place which by definition cannot exist and no one has observed) only logic exists? Excellent! And you now this how?

I'm not lying when I say you and your pretensions to some kind of uber-logic, really annoy me.

Kyu

if there is a god then mot likely there would be no free will. if there was free will then god wouldn't be an omnipotent deity. he'd be able to see our next move before it even happened.

First, time is a construct of humanity. What we perceive to be linear, may not be at all. So let's forget time in this discussion. (Just consider the number of black holes in the universe and their theoretical effects on time.)

Second, knowledge of actions past, present or future (from our human perspective) has no real imperative for influence, intervention or intercession. (You don't necessarily hit the curve ball just because you know it's coming.)

Third, it is the purported influence, intervention or intercession that destroys free will when paired with omnipotence or omniscience (assuming you have the capability to achieve influencing, intervening or interceding).

In short, it's the doing by omniscience or omnipotence that undoes free will, because free will implies freedom to act or not to act without impediment.

Jim