• 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!

Free will cannot exist at the same time as an omniscient, omnipotent being

Dan Mellis

Thorsredballs
... at least a being who is responsible for our creation.

I'll illustrate this in 3 points.

1. God apparently flooded the world because everyone was evil in their actions and thoughts

2. If god is all knowing, he knew how his creation was going to turn out and understood the consequences of his actions when creating this world

3. If god was all powerful, he could have created it in such a way that people weren't evil and he didn't need to kill them all.

If god knows how its all going to turn out and he knew every choice/thought you have before he created you, and he had the power to do it differently, it's only reasonable to assume that "free will" is an illusion of choice. If he already knows, then its already decided.

That is, if he existed.
 

JJ50

Well-Known Member
If a god created everything, including humans, it must have known how the human personality would evolve. Maybe it gets its kicks watching the suffering some humans impose on others.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
As I understand it, the neurosciences have demonstrated the unlikelihood of free will. That's pretty much the end of the story, isn't it?
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
As I understand it, the neurosciences have demonstrated the unlikelihood of free will. That's pretty much the end of the story, isn't it?
How did they distinguish between free will and the illusion of free will? I'm going to have to search that question. Any links?

Habitual behavior isn't the result of free will. But deciding to change habits might be. How did neuroscience deal with that, I wonder.
 
Last edited:

joe1776

Well-Known Member
... at least a being who is responsible for our creation.

I'll illustrate this in 3 points.

1. God apparently flooded the world because everyone was evil in their actions and thoughts

2. If god is all knowing, he knew how his creation was going to turn out and understood the consequences of his actions when creating this world

3. If god was all powerful, he could have created it in such a way that people weren't evil and he didn't need to kill them all.

If god knows how its all going to turn out and he knew every choice/thought you have before he created you, and he had the power to do it differently, it's only reasonable to assume that "free will" is an illusion of choice. If he already knows, then its already decided.

That is, if he existed.
Why isn't it possible that a Creator set this world up as a process intended to teach us to make moral progress? That would require the challenge of using free will, along with moral guidance (conscience) to overcome our immoral instincts. Then, having set it up, the Creator steps away and lets it run.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
... at least a being who is responsible for our creation.

I'll illustrate this in 3 points.

1. God apparently flooded the world because everyone was evil in their actions and thoughts

2. If god is all knowing, he knew how his creation was going to turn out and understood the consequences of his actions when creating this world

3. If god was all powerful, he could have created it in such a way that people weren't evil and he didn't need to kill them all.

If god knows how its all going to turn out and he knew every choice/thought you have before he created you, and he had the power to do it differently, it's only reasonable to assume that "free will" is an illusion of choice. If he already knows, then its already decided.

That is, if he existed.
He freely created the universe

there was no one to stop Him
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Why isn't it possible that a Creator set this world up as a process intended to teach us to make moral progress? That would require the challenge of using free will, along with moral guidance (conscience) to overcome our immoral instincts. Then, having set it up, the Creator steps away and lets it run.
That's possible, but it would also mean that the Creator would not be omniscient, so it's not the kind of God I assume the OP is talking about.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I lean to the notion that God......follows in presence WITH us

not much point in having books around
having read the conclusion before the event
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
This is how I see it:

The beginning and the end are determined. The path taken to get there and how long it takes are not determined.
hey!...…

if you are sure the ending of the story

FESS UP.....!!!!

you're sitting on a best seller....!!!!!

it's worth billions!!!!!
 

qaz

Member
free will doesn't exist, and its notion is useful only to priests, bourgeois and people who need some kind of sentimental "motivation" to do anything.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
That's possible, but it would also mean that the Creator would not be omniscient, so it's not the kind of God I assume the OP is talking about.
If "omniscient" is defined as a creator knowing in advance every choice each human will make, your point is valid.

However, as a practical matter, an effective Creator might only need to know how his scheme is going to turn out. It might be uninterested in micro-management.

I'm not accepting any of the god versions created by religion in this thought exercise, by the way.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
When you say "responsible for," what do you mean?

If by "responsible for" you mean that according to this particular theology, the one-god is "responsible for" the creation of all things, that makes sense to me.

If by "responsible for" you mean can be held accountable for its actions, that... well... good luck with that? This sort of responsibility is something of a human construct projected by humans onto various aspects of reality. Humans decided to believe in "justice" and that others should be held "responsible for" their actions in some notion of "fairness" (in spite of the universe clearly not being fair). To assume that an omnimax entity even conceptualizes "consequences for its actions" in the same way humans do strikes me as erroneous from the gate.


FYI, I do not worship the god of classical monotheists, so I have no vested interest in presenting case arguments for it.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
... at least a being who is responsible for our creation.

I'll illustrate this in 3 points.

1. God apparently flooded the world because everyone was evil in their actions and thoughts
You mean this to be about the Mythic-literal interpretation of God as believed in by Christian Biblical literalists? That's a bad place to start as a sweeping argument regarding the existence of God. Why not elevate the understanding of God beyond that?

2. If god is all knowing, he knew how his creation was going to turn out and understood the consequences of his actions when creating this world
Allowing that God is "all knowing" in the sense that God is Awareness of all past, present, and future events because not being bound to "time's arrow" as a human, this does not mean that what we see as "bad" is not simply just the natural order of things, such as saying death is "bad", when death what gives rise to life.

To judge the whole of reality from the subjective, and cultural conditionings of human value systems is more problematic that the notion of God's omniscience. It's actually silliness.

3. If god was all powerful, he could have created it in such a way that people weren't evil and he didn't need to kill them all.
Aside from Christian mythic-literal believers, I don't think the rest of the world sees God as killing humans because he gets "upset" with them.

If god knows how its all going to turn out and he knew every choice/thought you have before he created you, and he had the power to do it differently, it's only reasonable to assume that "free will" is an illusion of choice. If he already knows, then its already decided.
Conclusion: The mythic-literal interpretation of Ultimate Reality they call God doesn't make rational sense. Therefore think about God differently than in those terms. Don't accept mythic-literal interpretations and anthropomorphic projects as how you understand God. I don't. In other words, evolve your understanding of God, or Divine Reality as I call it, to not be incompatible with and an enemy of reason.

That is, if he existed.
I certainly believe God is Reality, and I don't believe any of the views of God described above a literally true. They are mythologies and metaphors, ways for people depending on where they are at in understanding Divine Reality to attempt to think about God. You're apparently moving past the mythic-literal view. That's a good, positive first step to a greater understanding.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
If "omniscient" is defined as a creator knowing in advance every choice each human will make, your point is valid.

However, as a practical matter, an effective Creator might only need to know how his scheme is going to turn out. It might be uninterested in micro-management.

I'm not accepting any of the god versions created by religion in this thought exercise, by the way.
But that's kind of the point - the thought exercise deals only with a specific version of God that is omniscient and thus knows the consequences of every action in advance. If you don't accept any such definitions, then the exercise doesn't really apply to refute them. A non-omniscient or non-omnipotent God isn't refuted by an argument that intends to refute only an omniscient and omnipotent God.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
hey!...…

if you are sure the ending of the story

FESS UP.....!!!!

you're sitting on a best seller....!!!!!

it's worth billions!!!!!
For the record, I know nothing. But I think an Omniscient God would know the ending.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
... at least a being who is responsible for our creation.

I'll illustrate this in 3 points.

1. God apparently flooded the world because everyone was evil in their actions and thoughts

2. If god is all knowing, he knew how his creation was going to turn out and understood the consequences of his actions when creating this world

3. If god was all powerful, he could have created it in such a way that people weren't evil and he didn't need to kill them all.

If god knows how its all going to turn out and he knew every choice/thought you have before he created you, and he had the power to do it differently, it's only reasonable to assume that "free will" is an illusion of choice. If he already knows, then its already decided.

That is, if he existed.
In this case and considering how obvious these plain contradictions are, do you think that there might be something else behind the words? Assume intelligent human beings came up with all of this.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
But that's kind of the point - the thought exercise deals only with a specific version of God that is omniscient and thus knows the consequences of every action in advance. If you don't accept any such definitions, then the exercise doesn't really apply to refute them. A non-omniscient or non-omnipotent God isn't refuted by an argument that intends to refute only an omniscient and omnipotent God.

This is what the OP says: 2. If god is all knowing, he knew how his creation was going to turn out and understood the consequences of his actions when creating this world

My Creator qualifies. You are adding requirements by adding the word omniscient and defining it as you do. Bottom line: By your definition a Creator would not be able to create free will because it would WANT to know everything in advance.
 
Last edited:
Top