• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How God's Omniscience Robs Him From Having A Free Will

siti

Well-Known Member
The above is like saying the playwright does not have free will over what happens in his play. I would say he does.
I'm not sure that's quite right...omniscience is knowing absolutely everything about absolutely everything...if a playwright knew absolutely every detail of the plot, characters, set, props - absolutely everything in minute detail before he even sat down to 'wright' the play - would he still have "free-will" as he wrote? And if he changes the play as he goes along then presumably he didn't have complete knowledge of it beforehand - even if he does after.

The finished portrait is explained by the features of the model, by the nature of the artist, by the colors spread out on the palette; but, even with the knowledge of what explains it, no one, not even the artist, could have foreseen exactly what the portrait would be, for to predict it would have been to produce it before it was produced - an absurd hypothesis which is its own refutation. ~ Henri Bergson
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I'm not sure that's quite right...omniscience is knowing absolutely everything about absolutely everything...if a playwright knew absolutely every detail of the plot, characters, set, props - absolutely everything in minute detail before he even sat down to 'wright' the play - would he still have "free-will" as he wrote? And if he changes the play as he goes along then presumably he didn't have complete knowledge of it beforehand - even if he does after.

The finished portrait is explained by the features of the model, by the nature of the artist, by the colors spread out on the palette; but, even with the knowledge of what explains it, no one, not even the artist, could have foreseen exactly what the portrait would be, for to predict it would have been to produce it before it was produced - an absurd hypothesis which is its own refutation. ~ Henri Bergson
I see God/Brahman as a playwright; an artist. A master play can be written an infinite number of ways and still be a master play.
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
An observer who can know which slit of a double-slit that a particle travels through will cause a resulting particle pattern; whereas, there is a resulting wave pattern when there's the absence of an observer who can know which slit of a double-slit that the particle went through.

An observer causes the collapse of a particle's wave function; hence, there'd be no wave patterns if there were always an observer knowing which slit of a double-slit that a particle went through.

All of which are part of the Natural Universe.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
I see God/Brahman as a playwright; an artist. A master play can be written an infinite number of ways and still be a master play.
But that is not omniscience then is it? If God knows all the possibilities but not which one will play out, then he is not omniscient - and moreover God then doesn't have free will either does he? Or what, we are pushed hither and thither at God's will as the play unfolds? That sounds more like "free whim" than free will.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
.

Consider: free will is the ability to have done differently. In essence it means that at the point of doing A or B one has the ability to choose to do one rather than the other.

Consider: omniscience is commonly defined as knowing everything. And this means e v e r y t h i n g, NO exceptions. Moreover, this would include all those things god does.

So, If God foreknows the occurrence of some event E, then E necessarily has to happens. And if that necessary Event happens to be something god does, then god has to do it. If he doesn't do it then he is not omniscient; having failed to see that he would not do it. So, if god knows that in 24 years on June 2nd he will send a hurricane sailing into Florida, he does not have the choice not to send that hurricane. His will is not free to do otherwise.
The way you express it here, it appears to be framed as a deficiency in G-d. But I think it should also be noted that since G-d Himself is not bound by time, it's difficult to say whether the dichotomy of choice and constraint is relevant to G-d in the first place. When does the "choice" to do something take place when you've already done the thing that you are currently doing while deciding to do? Conversely, maybe G-d has choice, but time makes it appear to us as though G-d is constrained to the thing he appears to have done. How would free-will look like in such a case, that we can say whether it's present or not?

I don't think it's correct to frame a claim about a being that transcends time, from a time-bound perspective about events that may require time to exist, without exploring any of these points.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
.

Consider: free will is the ability to have done differently. In essence it means that at the point of doing A or B one has the ability to choose to do one rather than the other.

Consider: omniscience is commonly defined as knowing everything. And this means e v e r y t h i n g, NO exceptions. Moreover, this would include all those things god does.

So, If God foreknows the occurrence of some event E, then E necessarily has to happens. And if that necessary Event happens to be something god does, then god has to do it. If he doesn't do it then he is not omniscient; having failed to see that he would not do it. So, if god knows that in 24 years on June 2nd he will send a hurricane sailing into Florida, he does not have the choice not to send that hurricane. His will is not free to do otherwise.

Now, some Christians contend that God's omniscience is inherent rather than total. That God chooses to limit his omniscience in order to preserve the freewill. Of course, limiting ones omniscience robs it of its very essence: knowing everything, which means he no longer merits the label, "omniscient." God is not omniscient at all---can't have your cake and eat it too. Moreover this convenient :rolleyes: "sometimes-omniscience" is not grounded in scripture but, as noted, comes from a grasping attempt to redefine god's character so as fit within Christian theology.

Reminds me of the old Science Vs Creationist Cartoon where expediency drives one's logic.

.
God is also omnipotent. Being omnipotent means, by definition, God can have free will even if it seems to contradict human logic.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
.
...
So, If God foreknows the occurrence of some event E, then E necessarily has to happens. ...
.

Yeah, and it can be by God’s free will, so there is really no problem. If God would have wanted something else, He would know it and how it makes the future different.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The question of whether there is 'Free Will' is a question of fallible human attributes, and not the nature of the 'Source' some call God(s). The nature and attributes of our physical existence reflects Creation by the 'Source' and Divine Will, and not a question of 'Free Will' or not.

Actually the present science considers it questionable that humans have significant Free Will, and the best explanation at present is form of 'compatabilism.'
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
But that is not omniscience then is it? If God knows all the possibilities but not which one will play out, then he is not omniscient - and moreover God then doesn't have free will either does he? Or what, we are pushed hither and thither at God's will as the play unfolds? That sounds more like "free whim" than free will.

This is a common problem of an anthropomorphic perspective of the 'Source' some call Gods. The nature of Divine Creation need not reflect choices by God, but simply reflect the Divine Will of God, and our physical existence is simply as is how God Created it.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
.

Consider: free will is the ability to have done differently. In essence it means that at the point of doing A or B one has the ability to choose to do one rather than the other.

Consider: omniscience is commonly defined as knowing everything. And this means e v e r y t h i n g, NO exceptions. Moreover, this would include all those things god does.

So, If God foreknows the occurrence of some event E, then E necessarily has to happens. And if that necessary Event happens to be something god does, then god has to do it. If he doesn't do it then he is not omniscient; having failed to see that he would not do it. So, if god knows that in 24 years on June 2nd he will send a hurricane sailing into Florida, he does not have the choice not to send that hurricane. His will is not free to do otherwise.

Now, some Christians contend that God's omniscience is inherent rather than total. That God chooses to limit his omniscience in order to preserve the freewill. Of course, limiting ones omniscience robs it of its very essence: knowing everything, which means he no longer merits the label, "omniscient." God is not omniscient at all---can't have your cake and eat it too. Moreover this convenient :rolleyes: "sometimes-omniscience" is not grounded in scripture but, as noted, comes from a grasping attempt to redefine god's character so as fit within Christian theology.

Reminds me of the old Science Vs Creationist Cartoon where expediency drives one's logic.
.
I think you can make an even stronger case :)

1. According to the bible, God can't lie, so much for free will :D

2. If God is all good, it is impossible for him to do evil, if that doesn't violate free will enough. One could argue that God must define what is good and what is evil, and therefore everything he does is good. But that also mean that humans are incapable of knowing the difference between good and evil, as we clearly do things that is considered good by God, but that we consider evil. So either way you are going to run into problems with God and free will or the bible.

Love that cartoon :)
 
Last edited:

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Sorry, I don't understand your comment. Are you agreeing that natural universe laws do not apply to the God in the OP?

There is a conceptual flaw in this logic. If science already had all the answers to all the questions of the universe, there would be no need to keep on investigating. Science would hold a huge retirement party and then sit back and day dream about the glory days of discovery.

The fact that all areas of science are still investigating, means the laws of the universe is a moving target and we have yet to hit the bulls eye. What we know today is not the same set of laws, that will be found at steady state or even millions of years in the future. God is not under half baked laws of temporal science that have yet to reach steady state. That is temporal human arrogance, created by unconsciousness of the final truth. It will cacti half baked as fully cooked.

For example, say you made this same argument, when the earth was considered flat by Middle Ages science. You may say, since the laws of the universe have decided the earth be flat, could God jump off the edge and still not fall? This would sort of make sense, at that time, since science was that limited and humans were arrogant enough think this was steady state.

Back when the earth was flat, humans made the choice to avoid sailing toward the edge. This was free will, induced by ignorance, since the option to sail in all directions, was always possible to them.

Half baked or temporal science gives us free will, by default, since it allow us to follow the wrong rules, allowing choices that deviate from the optimized choice that would be possible at steady state science; God laws.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
.

Consider: free will is the ability to have done differently. In essence it means that at the point of doing A or B one has the ability to choose to do one rather than the other.

Consider: omniscience is commonly defined as knowing everything. And this means e v e r y t h i n g, NO exceptions. Moreover, this would include all those things god does.

So, If God foreknows the occurrence of some event E, then E necessarily has to happens. And if that necessary Event happens to be something god does, then god has to do it. If he doesn't do it then he is not omniscient; having failed to see that he would not do it. So, if god knows that in 24 years on June 2nd he will send a hurricane sailing into Florida, he does not have the choice not to send that hurricane. His will is not free to do otherwise.

Now, some Christians contend that God's omniscience is inherent rather than total. That God chooses to limit his omniscience in order to preserve the freewill. Of course, limiting ones omniscience robs it of its very essence: knowing everything, which means he no longer merits the label, "omniscient." God is not omniscient at all---can't have your cake and eat it too. Moreover this convenient :rolleyes: "sometimes-omniscience" is not grounded in scripture but, as noted, comes from a grasping attempt to redefine god's character so as fit within Christian theology.

Reminds me of the old Science Vs Creationist Cartoon where expediency drives one's logic.

.


The only flaw in your argument, as I see it, is that you have fallen into the trap that comes from the human reasoning of trying to separate 'God' from something (or anything) else; in this case, 'Free Will'. Being totally omniscient, omnipotent, and transcendental requires that a Deity be everything as well as nothing. As I have said before "God" has to be the known and the not known as well as the knowing and the not knowing.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
.

Consider: free will is the ability to have done differently. In essence it means that at the point of doing A or B one has the ability to choose to do one rather than the other.

Consider: omniscience is commonly defined as knowing everything. And this means e v e r y t h i n g, NO exceptions. Moreover, this would include all those things god does.

So, If God foreknows the occurrence of some event E, then E necessarily has to happens. And if that necessary Event happens to be something god does, then god has to do it. If he doesn't do it then he is not omniscient; having failed to see that he would not do it. So, if god knows that in 24 years on June 2nd he will send a hurricane sailing into Florida, he does not have the choice not to send that hurricane. His will is not free to do otherwise.

Now, some Christians contend that God's omniscience is inherent rather than total. That God chooses to limit his omniscience in order to preserve the freewill. Of course, limiting ones omniscience robs it of its very essence: knowing everything, which means he no longer merits the label, "omniscient." God is not omniscient at all---can't have your cake and eat it too. Moreover this convenient :rolleyes: "sometimes-omniscience" is not grounded in scripture but, as noted, comes from a grasping attempt to redefine god's character so as fit within Christian theology.

Reminds me of the old Science Vs Creationist Cartoon where expediency drives one's logic.

.
not buying it

it would take all the fun out of watching the pets
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I think you can make an even stronger case :)

1. According to the bible, God can't lie, so much for free will :D

'According to the Bible' reflects an ancient cultural view of God or the 'Source' some call God(s). It also depends on which cultural belief or scripture in the diverse beliefs throughout the history of humanity, which would not be consistent nor reliable 'according to' that could define God whether God exists or not.

2. If God is all good, it is impossible for him to do evil, if that doesn't violate free will enough. One could argue that God must define what is good and what is evil, and therefore everything he does is good. But that also mean that humans are incapable of knowing the difference between good and evil, as we clearly do things that is considered good by God, but that we consider evil. So either way you are going to run into problems with God and free will or the bible.

Love that cartoon :)

If God exists, God would neither be good nor evil, because these are fallible human judgements depending on which ancient religion or world view you reference. An omnipotent omnipresent God could not be defined by any human cultural perspective.
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
The question of whether there is 'Free Will' is a question of fallible human attributes, and not the nature of the 'Source' some call God(s). The nature and attributes of our physical existence reflects Creation by the 'Source' and Divine Will, and not a question of 'Free Will' or not.

Actually the present science considers it questionable that humans have significant Free Will, and the best explanation at present is form of 'compatabilism.'
Agreed; it's anthropomorphizing "God"; a power that exists beyond the Universe itself.
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
There is a conceptual flaw in this logic. If science already had all the answers to all the questions of the universe, there would be no need to keep on investigating. Science would hold a huge retirement party and then sit back and day dream about the glory days of discovery.

The fact that all areas of science are still investigating, means the laws of the universe is a moving target and we have yet to hit the bulls eye. What we know today is not the same set of laws, that will be found at steady state or even millions of years in the future. God is not under half baked laws of temporal science that have yet to reach steady state. That is temporal human arrogance, created by unconsciousness of the final truth. It will cacti half baked as fully cooked.

For example, say you made this same argument, when the earth was considered flat by Middle Ages science. You may say, since the laws of the universe have decided the earth be flat, could God jump off the edge and still not fall? This would sort of make sense, at that time, since science was that limited and humans were arrogant enough think this was steady state.

Back when the earth was flat, humans made the choice to avoid sailing toward the edge. This was free will, induced by ignorance, since the option to sail in all directions, was always possible to them.

Half baked or temporal science gives us free will, by default, since it allow us to follow the wrong rules, allowing choices that deviate from the optimized choice that would be possible at steady state science; God laws.
We, as a species, don't have all the answers but the rules of the Universe indicate that all that exists can be known. Just because a person can't find their car keys doesn't mean those keys ceased to exist. They do, but their location is unknown. Likewise, how the Universe works, all the laws that govern it can be known. We just don't know all of them...yet.

That said, such rules inside the Universe would not necessarily apply to a power or entity that exists beyond it.
 
Top