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

[BadPoison]

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?

[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.

[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?

[Will]

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

[BadPoison]

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.

[Will]

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.

[Wechtlein Uns]

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.

[Whitney]

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

[Wechtlein Uns]

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.

[Sophus]

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.

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...

[BadPoison]

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.

[BadPoison]

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.

[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.

[BadPoison]

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.

[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? 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?