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

Skwim said:

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?
.

Click to expand...

You can introduce any condition. But these introductions are after-thoughts of waking time that you are superimposing on pre-dream situation.

In my example, the dreamer is actually not in space-time and there is no compulsion to dream in any particular fashion. There is no ensuing effect.

shunyadragon said:

Yes the the manifestations of God are preordained. No each person's response is not preordained.

Click to expand...

But suppose every human responded positively to a particular Manifestation's revelation...what purpose would be served by sending another one? That there is a preordained succession of Manifestations presupposes that some people will not respond positively, doesn't it? And now suppose that I (stubbornly argumentative as I am) am the very last person to hold out and refuse to acknowledge the latest Manifestation - does that mean I can personally, by choice, make or break the Divine Will which has already determined that it is necessary to send another one?

siti said:

But suppose every human responded positively to a particular Manifestation's revelation...what purpose would be served by sending another one? That there is a preordained succession of Manifestations presupposes that some people will not respond positively, doesn't it? And now suppose that I (stubbornly argumentative as I am) am the very last person to hold out and refuse to acknowledge the latest Manifestation - does that mean I can personally, by choice, make or break the Divine Will which has already determined that it is necessary to send another one?

Click to expand...

Suppose?!?!?! I do not work well with hypothetical 'supposes.'

shunyadragon said:

Suppose?!?!?! I do not work well with hypothetical 'supposes.'

Click to expand...

Well perhaps you should? God must, after all, "suppose" that not everyone will respond positively to his Messengers mustn't he? Because if he doesn't, that means he must know for certain, and if he knows for certain, bang goes our free will - doesn't it?

siti said:

Well perhaps you should? God must, after all, "suppose" that not everyone will respond positively to his Messengers mustn't he? Because if he doesn't, that means he must know for certain, and if he knows for certain, bang goes our free will - doesn't it?

Click to expand...

'Sopposes' are circular mouse traps designed to justify one's own argument, your own.

I fully realize that you are apparently a mechanistic deterministic humanist. Supposes do not work in your No Free Will view, but than again it self justifies your view..

shunyadragon said:

'Sopposes' are circular mouse traps designed to justify one's own argument, your own.

I fully realize that you are apparently a mechanistic deterministic humanist. Supposes do not work in your No Free Will view, but than again it self justifies your view..

Click to expand...

He shoots...oh no he's missed again...

No, Mr Dragon, humanist possibly, to some extent - and certainly as far as making the world of human society a more human-friendly one is concerned, mechanistic certainly not (more of a 'rhizomic process' person myself but I don't suppose that would mean much to anyone else), deterministic - heaven forbid!

Its called a thought experiment - suppose (just another word for 'imagine' in this context) you are God and there is just one person left in the world who does not believe in your latest Manifestation (yet)...does that person's ultimate decision determine whether or not you send another Manifestation into the world or is it already preordained?

siti said:

He shoots...oh no he's missed again...

No, Mr Dragon, humanist possibly, to some extent - and certainly as far as making the world of human society a more human-friendly one is concerned, mechanistic certainly not (more of a 'rhizomic process' person myself but I don't suppose that would mean much to anyone else), deterministic - heaven forbid!

Its called a thought experiment - suppose (just another word for 'imagine' in this context) you are God and there is just one person left in the world who does not believe in your latest Manifestation (yet)...does that person's ultimate decision determine whether or not you send another Manifestation into the world or is it already preordained?

Click to expand...

Again hypothetical 'supposes' have no meaning, because anything is possible is a 'supposed' world' and no meaningful constructive response is possible.

Road Warrior said:

Given there is an all-powerful entity capable of creating a Universe with 100 billion galaxies and 100 billion stars per galaxy, then I think it's foolish to anthropomorphize such a power with human limitations. I doubt any mere mortal can comprehend such a power. Anyone who claims they "know what God wants" or "knows God" is either crazy or lying.

Click to expand...

Or both.

Dan From Smithville said:

Or both.

Click to expand...

A viable alternative.

siti said:

But that analogy only works so far, surely? I mean in a movie we know that the people who suffer and die have not really suffered an died...How does Brahman justify the suffering...? Is that illusory as well? It sure doesn't feel like it sometimes.

Click to expand...

Here is how I understand it:

The sufferer and the joyous are all Brahman. Like in many great plays there is a beginning, much drama including suffering in the middle, and victory for our protagonists in the end. Our temporarily suffering protagonist is on the road to Brahman-Realization pure sat-cit-Ananda (being-awareness-bliss).

siti said:

I think (possibly) I agree that ultimately there is just 'one' reality...but I don't see the unfolding of reality so much as a play or sport - but rather as a constant striving of that reality to become 'one'...the many becoming one and being increased by one as each 'moment' or 'occasion' of the struggle evolves out of the process to become part of the unified foundation upon which the next occasion is built - or rather 'buds off'...choice and purpose ("free will") are key, but only change is truly fundamental...nothing is permanent except impermanence...impermanence is existence...if nothing changes, 'existence' ceases...and the process is perpetuated by each of the occasions at once asserting their 'individuality' whilst simultaneously becoming reabsorbed into the 'indivisability' of the 'oneness' of the overall 'production'. It is the 'striving' that brings forth both suffering and joy - in the 'oneness' there is just stillness - no pain, no joy, no sorrow, no elation...I'm not sure Brahman 'wills' anything because how can 'oneness' 'desire' anything? It just is what it is - it is the 'many' that strive incessantly to become 'one' - the 'one' has no need of anything because it already is everything.

Click to expand...

Here's another analogy. What does a wise man that has everything and is the only entity alive do? He experiences art/play/drama/thoughts. And he has to will temporary limitations on himself to experience change.

I am curious from reading the above. From what perspective do you come from: Buddhist, Atheist, your own thoughts? Do you believe in life after death and reincarnation?

siti said:

But suppose every human responded positively to a particular Manifestation's revelation...what purpose would be served by sending another one? That there is a preordained succession of Manifestations presupposes that some people will not respond positively, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

No, that is not the reason God sends new Manifestations in every age. God sends new ones because we need new messages and new social teachings and laws. God does not care how many people recognize His Manifestations because it will not hurt God if we reject them; it will only hurt the people who reject them... God does not need anything from humans because God is fully Self-Sufficient... It is us humans who need God, and His messages...

“This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future. Let him that seeketh, attain it; and as to him that hath refused to seek it—verily, God is Self-Sufficient, above any need of His creatures.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 136

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 140

“Your Lord, the God of mercy, can well dispense with all creatures. Nothing whatever can either increase or diminish the things He doth possess. If ye believe, to your own behoof will ye believe; and if ye believe not, ye yourselves will suffer.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 148

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 260

“Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures. This is the true meaning of Divine unity. He Who is the Eternal Truth is the one Power Who exerciseth undisputed sovereignty over the world of being, Whose image is reflected in the mirror of the entire creation. All existence is dependent upon Him, and from Him is derived the source of the sustenance of all things. This is what is meant by Divine unity; this is its fundamental principle.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 166

Nimos said:

Random event? Where did you get that from? I wrote random choice and how you decide to do that, if you have no free will?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I was trying to make sense of your statement as best I could. So, just what do you mean when you say, "But random is free will,"

And don't forget that when I used "random" I qualified it as "utterly."
Hence; completely random: completely by chance. So, to substitute; what do you mean by "But completely by chance is free will"?

.

A random choice is when you don't know what the outcome will be or even what the meaning of the question is in the first place.

Click to expand...

Your term, so I guess you can define it however you want, but ????????????

.

Skwim said:

Sorry, I was trying to make sense of your statement as best I could. So, just what do you mean when you say, "But random is free will,"

random
adjective
us /ˈræn·dəm/ happening, done, or chosen by chance rather than according to a plan or pattern:

And don't forget that when I used "random" I qualified it as "utterly."

utterly
adverb uk /ˈʌt.əl.i/ us /ˈʌ.t̬ɚ.li/ completely or extremely:
Hence; completely random: completely by chance. So, to substitute; what do you mean by "But completely by chance is free will"?

Click to expand...

You made the argument, in a former post that what I wrote was irrelevant, when I said that one would have to assume that God have free will. Because you said that there was only two ways for things to happen and there was no free will of choice.

1. Cause and effect, was one of them.
2. Randomness was the other.

To me that is closely related to determinism, which says:

Determinism is the philosophical belief that all events are determined completely by previously existing causes. Deterministic theories throughout the history of philosophy have sprung from diverse and sometimes overlapping motives and considerations. The opposite of determinism is some kind of indeterminism (otherwise called nondeterminism). Determinism is often contrasted with free will.

When I write that random choice is free will, its because you have to make a distinction between things, when it comes to making a choice.

Let me give an example, which I have use before, but will extend it slightly:

I ask you to choose between (A), (A) or none of them?

You don't know what I mean with this or what the consequences of choosing any of them are. Based on determinism the cause is me asking the question, that have the effect of you having to make a choice. Which is fine. But the cause doesn't force you to choose any specific option, like the first (A). and since you have nothing to guide you in which option is the best one, you have to make a random choice. That choice, regardless of whether it turns out that you chose the worse option, is still a choice based on free will.

So In the beginning according to the common understanding of the bible, there was nothing except God, so how did God decide to make The Heavens and Earth (first line in the bible), if he had no free will and there were no first cause?
To me its basically the same as to ask how does a small child make it first choice, when their parents ask them whether they want "This" or "That" having no prior knowledge of what they are talking about. Lets imagine "This" and "That" is actually orange juice and apple juice, which the child have never tasted. So the parents might ask them which of them they want, without even having the juice boxes there so the child can see them. So the child have to make a choice without any knowledge of what the parent might be talking about.

Skwim said:

Your term, so I guess you can define it however you want, but ????????????

Click to expand...

Do you disagree with my definition of what a random choice is? if you think its wrong, feel free to adjust it, but I think mine explain it fairly well in relationship to what is meant with "without method or conscious decision".

Random
adjective

1. 
   made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision.
   "apparently random violence"

shunyadragon said:

The nature of Divine Creation need not reflect choices by God, but simply reflect the Divine Will of God,

Click to expand...

I don't see the difference between choice and will... what do you mean by this statement?

stvdv said:

in that way the creator has the option to create some more Free Will for Himself maybe.

Click to expand...

God has the free will to create more free will for Himself... how does that make any sense?

Jos said:

God has the free will to create more free will for Himself... how does that make any sense?

Click to expand...

God can create, so God has Free Will ... every time God creates, His Free Will manifests

Jos said:

I don't see the difference between choice and will... what do you mean by this statement?

Click to expand...

Simply by definition.

Jos said:

I don't see the difference between choice and will... what do you mean by this statement?

Click to expand...

You have the choice to buy an apple in the shop
You have not the "Free Will" to manifest an apple

stvdv said:

You have the choice to buy an apple in the shop
You have not the "Free Will" to manifest an apple

Click to expand...

I am human, and not God.

shunyadragon said:

I am human, and not God.

Click to expand...

I know ... not your choice ... not your Free Will