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

[Road Warrior]

not buying it

it would take all the fun out of watching the pets

Pets would be one point of view. Another would be that we're all part of "God" temporary set apart for unknown reasons....but I do suspect that Eternity can be boring.

 

[BilliardsBall]

.

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 "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.

View attachment 29939

.​

.

Have you confused omniscience for omnipotence?

God is wholly omniscient.

God is wholly omnipotent, up to the Bible stating, "He does whatever pleases Him," and it pleases Him to share power.

 

[Road Warrior]

Have you confused omniscience for omnipotence?

God is wholly omniscient.

God is wholly omnipotent, up to the Bible stating, "He does whatever pleases Him," and it pleases Him to share power.

Yes it says that but while I believe the Bible does contain some timeless wisdom, I take the perceptions of a bunch of semi-literate desert nomads with a large grain of salt.

 

[Nimos]

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.

Based on what do you make that assumption? And if what you are saying is true, the bible is clearly wrong and therefore we would have no clue what God is and is not, making it rather pointless to have faith in him, he could be a devil and we wouldn't know, since we have no way to define what is actually meant by good or evil or even God.

 

[shunyadragon]

Based on what do you make that assumption? And if what you are saying is true, the bible is clearly wrong and therefore we would have no clue what God is and is not, making it rather pointless to have faith in him, he could be a devil and we wouldn't know, since we have no way to define what is actually meant by good or evil or even God.

I will agree that concerning the nature of God the Bible is limited from an anthropomorphic ancient perspective, but I do not go as far as 'the Bible is totally wrong. One problem is the nature of God or God(s) throughout the Bible changes, and this brings up the question which view of God(s) in the Bible is the true God? Is it the Genesis God(s), the contemporary Jewish perspective, or the Trinitarian hands on God of Christianity, or one of the other variable human construction of what humans think 'God is?'

I believe the concept of what is good and evil is from the human perspective, and again changes through the history as portrayed in the Bible. It is likely true that fallible humans cannot define God, nor what is 'good and evil,' objectively in terms of the Bible and the other diverse conflicting religions, because it is a matter of fact that it is too variable and conflicting. It is by faith that we believe. IF God exists, my preference is a universal apophatic God not definable by fallible humans, therefore I believe in the Baha'i Faith, where humans spiritually evolve as they physically evolve in our comprehension of the nature of the attributes of God in Creation, and not defining the attributes of good and evil in terms of knowing God.

It remains a matter of fact that the concept of good and evil among humans is variable and changes of time. If God exists God does not change.

 

[Nimos]

I will agree that concerning the nature of God the Bible is limited from an anthropomorphic ancient perspective, but I do not go as far as 'the Bible is totally wrong. One problem is the nature of God or God(s) throughout the Bible changes, and this brings up the question which view of God(s) in the Bible is the true God? Is it the Genesis God(s), the contemporary Jewish perspective, or the Trinitarian hands on God of Christianity, or one of the other variable human construction of what humans think 'God is?'

I didn't say that the whole bible is wrong, simply in regards to be able to portrait God correctly, if we are unable to even define good and evil.

I believe the concept of what is good and evil is from the human perspective, and again changes through the history as portrayed in the Bible. It is likely true that fallible humans cannot define God, nor what is 'good and evil,' objectively in terms of the Bible and the other diverse conflicting religions, because it is a matter of fact that it is too variable and conflicting. It is by faith that we believe. IF God exists, my preference is a universal apophatic God not definable by fallible humans, therefore I believe in the Baha'i Faith, where humans spiritually evolve as they physically evolve in our comprehension of the nature of the attributes of God in Creation, and not defining the attributes of good and evil in terms of knowing God.

It remains a matter of fact that the concept of good and evil among humans is variable and changes of time. If God exists God does not change.

But if what you say is true, you can't trust the bible and therefore not God, at least not one that relies on the bible. Even in your own faith you believe that Baha'ullah is Jesus right? But how can you believe in that, if what you rely on that, if fallible humans wrote the bible? and therefore unable to trust what is written about God and good and evil.

At most what you would be able to get to in terms of faith, as I see it, is that "if a God exists, he could be anything and his purpose just as well." Because reading the bible, how do you decide what is written by fallible humans and what is not?

 

[viole]

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.

Well, apparently God is not there to observe in case of an interference pattern.

Ciao
- viole

 

[viole]

.

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 "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.

View attachment 29939

.​

.

What I don’t understand is why theists are so against a deterministic Universe when they hear it from science, while, at the same time, the sole existence of an omniscient being that cannot be wrong, entails exactly that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Skwim]

If we don't accept the premise, are we free to dismiss the argument?

Not a premise, just a definition of terms. However, if you have a better definition of "free will" please share.

.

 

[George-ananda]

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

True perhaps, BUT he does know the whole play; beginning, middle and end. He is the playwright as the observer of the play.

 

[Skwim]

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

Why? How does his power to do something necessarily impact his innate character? It doesn't. Doing something is not the same as having something.

.

 

[Skwim]

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.

This makes no sense.

.

 

[Skwim]

I think you can make an even stronger case

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

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

Excellent!

.

 

[Skwim]

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'.

And why should anyone suppose he has free will in the first place? Because Christian theology demands that he does, regardless of it's lack of logic. The scriptures never say god has free will, it's just that in putting together their god, theologians have decided that to make sense of their Christian theology, free will is necessary. Nonsensical as it is.

Being totally omniscient, omnipotent, and transcendental requires that a Deity be everything as well as nothing.

Kind of cute, but that's all.

.

 

[BSM1]

And why should anyone suppose he has free will in the first place? Because Christian theology demands that he does, regardless of it's lack of logic. The scriptures never say god has free will, it's just that in putting together their god, theologians have decided that to make sense of their Christian theology, free will is necessary. Nonsensical as it is.


Kind of cute, but that's all.

.

Exactly. Anthropomorphism is definitely the bogeyman of true knowledge.

 

[Skwim]

What I don’t understand is why theists are so against a deterministic Universe when they hear it from science, while, at the same time, the sole existence of an omniscient being that cannot be wrong, entails exactly that.

Christians are against it because free will is required to make sense out of their concept of sin and salvation.

.

 

[atanu]

.

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---ya can't have your cake and eat it too. Moreover this convenient "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.

View attachment 29939.​

.

Suppose you had the power to dream as per your wish. Then does your omniscience rob you of your free will?

Serious.

 

[Nimos]

And why should anyone suppose he has free will in the first place? Because Christian theology demands that he does, regardless of it's lack of logic. The scriptures never say god has free will, it's just that in putting together their god, theologians have decided that to make sense of their Christian theology, free will is necessary. Nonsensical as it is.

Even though the bible doesn't explicit say that God does have free will, he must have. You might have started this whole topic on the basis of whether God have free will or not, but what you will end up with is that he doesn't have it and that the bible is contradicting it self and ultimately that you can proof that it is wrong. Which is obviously not going to be accepted by those that believe that the bible is absolutely true, which is not what most Christians believe.

And it is going something like this:
So taking into account the stuff you have already written in your first post and that God is unable to lie.

If God doesn't have free will as you are correctly stating that the bible doesn't claim he have, you would instantly be wondering about the following things.

1. Who or what tells God what is good and what is evil, if he doesn't have free will to decide this?
2. How does God know that he is correct about the difference between them, if he didn't decide it?

Which would lead to the question, who created God?

And eventually you end in a circular argument of who created what and what existed when and where?

Which then makes you wonder, did the bible get it wrong or did God, when it state that God can't lie? Because either God did lie or the bible is wrong, both of them can't be true.

This leaves you with two options.

1. If God did lie, then we have no clue what his nature or purpose is, but we also know that the bible is then wrong.
2. The bible got it wrong and there is no way for us to know what else might be wrong as well. Which eventually mean that we have no clue what the nature of God or what his purpose is either.

So which of them is it?

 

[Skwim]

Suppose you had the power to dream as per your wish. Then does your omniscience rob you of your free will?

Yes, because my omniscience would already have made me aware that I would wish to dream what I did, therefore I could not have wished any differently. The more pertinent question though is why did I wish what I did and not wish something else?

.

 

[Skwim]

So taking into account the stuff you have already written in your first post and that God is unable to lie.

If God doesn't have free will as you are correctly stating that the bible doesn't claim, you would instantly be wondering about the following things.

1. Who or what tells God what is good and what is evil, if he doesn't have free will to decide this?
2. How does God know that he is correct about the difference between them, if he didn't decide it?

No, I wouldn't be wondering about them at all, instantly or not.

1. He makes no such "decision," as in choosing between alternatives. As with any other sentient being, whatever he thinks, he is caused to think by all the antecedent cause/effect events that led him to think what he did and not something else. If there is no such causal machinery behind what he thinks than what he thinks is utterly random. He could have just as well have thought, "I'll make poop stink."

2. Same answer as above. His knowledge is the result of all the antecedent cause/effect events that led him to think (know) what he did and not something else. If he recognizes the difference between good and evil, it's only because the cause/effect events that led him to that particular recognition. And, as I said, If there is no such causal machinery behind what he thinks than what he thinks is utterly random. Want to claim that god's thoughts are utterly random? If not, then they were determined by prior causal events.

There are only two alternatives as to "why" someone thinks or does what he does: Causation and Randomness. There is no such thing as freely choosing.

.