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

[Nimos]

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.

.

So Gods first action was random as it can't have had any cause? Also he had no knowledge of past events to guide him, so by pure randomness in all his decisions he created every single thing ever created?

Random is to be free and deciding what to do, as you have no prior causation to guide you. So you take a chance and hope for the best.

 

[stvdv]

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.

Interesting thread ... nice to contemplate about ... Makes sense what you write ... except that God has Free Will when creating something new IMO

Hypothetical "God created the universe" ... that was free will. Thereafter the train is running, unless God created a so called "backdoor" where He has the option to start a new creation. In software programming you can create "recursive procedures" in which you have the option to change the "input" (choice of random input is available), in that way the creator has the option to create some more Free Will for Himself maybe.

Hence the advice "think twice before you act, you can't undo what has been done (most of the time)"

Knowing you a little (seeing your large footer), I expect you to "disagree with me" ... (maybe this is the only line you agree with me)

 

[Skwim]

So Gods first action was random as it can't have had any cause?

Was there such a thing as a "first action" by god? Most Christians I know would say no. They say he's eternal (whatever that signifies), as would be his actions and the chain of cause and effects that controls him would have to be. However, if god's first action was random then it seems logical to infer god himself was likely a random occurrence. From then on I guess he would be operating randomly as little by little causation would begin to take over. But this is all up to the Christian theologians who craft god's character to fight over, which so far is that god is eternal, and implies there was no first action, random or otherwise.

So, taking Christians at their word that god is eternal---I have no argument for or against the idea---randomness is a moot point.


.

 

[Skwim]

Interesting thread ... nice to contemplate about ... Makes sense what you write ... except that God has Free Will when creating something new IMO

Hypothetical "God created the universe" ... that was free will. Thereafter the train is running, unless God created a so called "backdoor" where He has the option to start a new creation. In software programming you can create "recursive procedures" in which you have the option to change the "input" (choice of random input is available), in that way the creator has the option to create some more Free Will for Himself maybe.

Hence the advice "think twice before you act, you can't undo what has been done (most of the time)"

Knowing you a little (seeing your large footer), I expect you to "disagree with me" ... (maybe this is the only line you agree with me)

Well, of course I disagree with your "except that God has Free Will when creating something new," and "the creator has the option to create some more Free Will for Himself maybe," As well as the claim that the creation of the universe was an act of free will.

.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

You intimated such a conclusion is possible, and I agree if I was an atheist.

The question remains if the Bible is your reference, which God and view of good and evil, the Genesis God, the contemporary Jewish God, the hands on Trinitarian God of Christianity?

Considering this inconsistency and the many conflicting interpretations and conflicting divisions in Christianity what standard do you use other than faith in your interpretation.?

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.

I made no conclusion at this point in our discussion as whether God exists or not. The Baha'is do not believe Baha'u'llah is Jesus Christ.

The Bible by itself is as a matter of fact far too conflicting and inconsistent to be a reference on its own as to what is God and what is 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?

The high lighted above would the conclusion is I were atheist, and viable based on the awkward inconsistency of the Bible without provenance and questionable authorship. The distinctly cultural tribal perspective of Judaism, Christianity and Islam further negated any one of them alone to have a consistent standard of good and evil for the contemporary world, in part due to their inconsistency.

I did conclude that the relevant universal of our existence is my criteria, and actually the atheist/agnostic world view is far more consistent than any one ancient religion, and based on this you can through them all out including the baby with the bathwater.

To believe in God, which reflected a universal perspective it was difficult. At present I found the Baha'i Faith to the only belief system that explained the spiritual evolution of humanity through progressive Revelation putting the different religions of the world in a consistent perspective. The Baha'i explanation of what is good and evil is more relevant to contemporary world

 

[stvdv]

As well as the claim that the creation of the universe was an act of free will.

It was not a claim I made (I added "maybe") ... just a thought, reflecting on this. Making claims about God I rather avoid

 

[Nimos]

Was there such a thing as a "first action" by god? Most Christians I know would say no. They say he's eternal (whatever that signifies), as would be his actions and the chain of cause and effects that controls him would have to be. However, if god's first action was random then it seems logical to infer god himself was likely a random occurrence. From then on I guess he would be operating randomly as little by little causation would begin to take over. But this is all up to the Christian theologians who craft god's character to fight over, which so far is that god is eternal, and implies there was no first action, random or otherwise.

So, taking Christians at their word that god is eternal---I have no argument for or against the idea---randomness is a moot point.
.

But your argument was that of determinism, either God created all due to randomness or it was due to casusations. But random is free will, regardless of whether you know if the outcome will turn out good or bad. But even to decide to make a random choice in the first place must require some free will, or how would you explain that?

I don't really see how God being eternal have anything to do with whether he have free will or not. The conditions above still applies. How do you decide to make a random choice?

 

[siti]

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.

What's the difference between "choices by God" and "Will of God"? If they're not "free" then God lacks free will - doesn't "he"? Its not a problem to me, I am perfectly OK with a "God" that just does what "Gods" do without thinking about it...but if necessity is laid upon God, that surely is a problem for theistic theologies - isn't it? How could God "intervene" to prevent this or that catastrophe (natural or anthropogenic") without making a choice? Are the advents of the various Messengers pre-ordained - if not, how could God be said to be omniscient? If yes, then God has no choice but to send them at the appointed time. Is that the "Will of God"? Or a bare necessity? And if it is all known and pre-ordained - then so, presumably, is each person's response to the Messengers - otherwise how would God know if and when to send the next one? So the "Most Great Peace" was never going to happen anyway...it is a big theological problem for theistic models of deity if God either cannot or does not make choices and an even bigger one if he does as far as I can see.

 

[Nimos]

You intimated such a conclusion is possible, and I agree if I was an atheist.

The question remains if the Bible is your reference, which God and view of good and evil, the Genesis God, the contemporary Jewish God, the hands on Trinitarian God of Christianity?

Considering this inconsistency and the many conflicting interpretations and conflicting divisions in Christianity what standard do you use other than faith in your interpretation.?

I agree with you that God changes "nature" throughout the bible. But still it doesn't really explain anything other than he that and that the bible had different writers.

So yes believing in God is based on faith, I wouldn't disagree that ultimately that is the conclusion that I reach. But still some elements of the bible can be true, to me its purely the more historic things, how society in those times worked etc.

I made no conclusion at this point in our discussion as whether God exists or not. The Baha'is do not believe Baha'u'llah is Jesus Christ.

The Bible by itself is as a matter of fact far too conflicting and inconsistent to be a reference on its own as to what is God and what is good and evil.

Ok might have misunderstood that, but you see him as a prophet equal to that of Moses, Jesus etc?

So you don't believe in the bible or only part of it or do you believe in all the religions, but that part of the truth should be found in all of them, can you try to explain that?

 

[siti]

It can't, but our language has limits when discussing "no time" just as it does when discussing outside the Universe.

Its not a language problem, its a conceptualization problem...we can't imagine a time without time or a space beyond space because the concepts are paradoxical - and therefore almost certainly wrong. There is, in fact, no evidence whatsoever that there was neither time nor space 'before' the Big Bang - there is no evidence of anything or nothing because it is invisible to us - wiped out by the event itself - but that doesn't mean it wasn't there then - even less that there was no there or then.

 

[Skwim]

But random is free will, regardless of whether you know is the outcome will turn out good or bad.

Whaaaa? How is a random event an act of a free will?

But even to decide to make a random choice in the first place must require some free will, or how would you explain that?

First of all, I don't believe choosing, or any of its cognates, exist, so your question is without substance. And just what is a "random choice" anyway?

I don't really see how God being eternal have anything to do with whether he have free will or not.

It doesn't. It has to do with god's first act of utter randomness, the issue you raised in post 61.

.

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree with you that God changes "nature" throughout the bible. But still it doesn't really explain anything other than he that and that the bible had different writers.

It explains more than that, and leaves more questions you have not answered concerning what to believe considering the contradictions and inconsistencies in how you determine what is true.

So yes believing in God is based on faith, I wouldn't disagree that ultimately that is the conclusion that I reach. But still some elements of the bible can be true, to me its purely the more historic things, how society in those times worked etc.

Never objected that certain elements of the Bible are true, because the writers of the Bible are set in history whether they witnessed it or it was handed down to them.

Ok might have misunderstood that, but you see him as a prophet equal to that of Moses, Jesus etc?

In progressive Revelation all are Manifestations of God in the progressive spiritual evolution of humanity and Creation which are found in the scriptures. They are all subject to cultural human view in the scriptures by the humans that wrote the scriptures..

So you don't believe in the bible or only part of it or do you believe in all the religions, but that part of the truth should be found in all of them, can you try to explain that?

It is not exactly believing in or not believing in this or that concerning the scripture of the different religions. I believe there are obvious elements of mythology like dragons, and a world flood which are based on mythology, about may also have some element of truth. There are also elements of the spiritual attributes of the Divine Revelation, and many are found in the different religions.

The scriptures of the different religions contain both Revelation and the human view of God and their relationship with God. Yes the attributes of God can be found in the different religions that are part of Revelation. Examples of attributes of God are love, wisdom, compassion and justice.

 

[siti]

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

I honestly don't think that works...if the end is already known, then the details of the rest of the play are predetermined...that's all a bit too Calvinistic for me. If the end is known, then all the actors have to be in the right place, at the right time, in the right costumes with the right set and the right props - otherwise the entire production will flop...if God knows the end, he knows the entire play in detail from the beginning and we are just reading from a script...every letter I type - even the words I misspell - must be known before I even sit down to type...otherwise, I might end up in an entirely different finale - different play - from what God intended. I just can't believe that - even if I though it might be true I would refuse to believe it for the sake of the "play".

 

[Nimos]

Whaaaa? How is a random event an act of a free will?

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?

First of all, I don't believe choosing, or any of its cognates, exist, so your question is without substance. And just what is a "random choice" anyway?

According to the bible there were nothing except God and then he created all, that is pretty much the common understanding. So how would God make the decision to do it in the first place?

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.

 

[Nimos]

It explains more than that, and leaves more questions you have not answered concerning what to believe considering the contradictions and inconsistencies in how you determine what is true.

Im an atheist so to me, anything that claim miracles, divinity, God, Jesus as son of God, Adam and Eve...etc. All of that is made up. The reason there are contradictions and inconsistencies is because its written and made up by humans, some things were added later and people that wrote it might have had difference agendas. So Im not really sure what questions I haven't answered?

Never objected that certain elements of the Bible are true, because the writers of the Bible are set in history whether they witnessed it or it was handed down to them.

I know, it was me explaining to you, why I never said that the bible was completely wrong, it was just to clarify it.

In progressive Revelation all are Manifestations of God in the progressive spiritual evolution of humanity and Creation which are found in the scriptures. They are all subject to cultural human view in the scriptures by the humans that wrote the scriptures..

So is that an yes or a no, do you see him as a prophet equal to Jesus, Moses etc?

It is not exactly believing in or not believing in this or that concerning the scripture of the different religions. I believe there are obvious elements of mythology like dragons, and a world flood which are based on mythology, about may also have some element of truth. There are also elements of the spiritual attributes of the Divine Revelation, and many are found in the different religions.

The scriptures of the different religions contain both Revelation and the human view of God and their relationship with God. Yes the attributes of God can be found in the different religions that are part of Revelation. Examples of attributes of God are love, wisdom, compassion and justice.

But doesn't that bring us back to the initial problem, how do you decide what is true and what is written by fallible humans, I don't see how you can make that distinction, besides picking and choosing what you like?

 

[shunyadragon]

Im an atheist so to me, anything that claim miracles, divinity, God, Jesus as son of God, Adam and Eve...etc. All of that is made up. The reason there are contradictions and inconsistencies is because its written and made up by humans, some things were added later and people that wrote it might have had difference agendas. So Im not really sure what questions I haven't answered?

In this thread it was not clear you were an atheist.

I know, it was me explaining to you, why I never said that the bible was completely wrong, it was just to clarify it.

Your view is becoming clearer.

So is that an yes or a no, do you see him as a prophet equal to Jesus, Moses etc?

The manifestations of God are not equal nor unequal they simply are.

But doesn't that bring us back to the initial problem, how do you decide what is true and what is written by fallible humans, I don't see how you can make that distinction, besides picking and choosing what you like?

Part of the distinction is obvious and that is the mythology of ancient scripture, and the fact that the history and events in the scripture are most definitely human. There is also a definite human anthropomorphic description of God, sacrifice and and the emphasis embellishment of the founders, kings and rulers with miracles common in all cultures.

It is the spiritual teachings that endure past the material trappings of religions that endure and are reinforced by future revelations.

 

[Nimos]

In this thread it was not clear you were an atheist.

That is because I argue based on what is being said and not my own view on the bible. Which is simply because I don't want to present the bible for something that it ain't, even if I disagree with it being what it claims to be. I think one should treat it with respect and for what it says and will defend it, if people claim that it says something that it clearly doesn't, as that would be unfair.

It is the spiritual teachings that endure past the material trappings of religions that endure and are reinforced by future revelations.

So do you believe that these spiritual teachings, by which I assume you me unity between humans, love etc. Would be true if it weren't for these teachings or do you think its true regardless?

 

[George-ananda]

I honestly don't think that works...if the end is already known, then the details of the rest of the play are predetermined...that's all a bit too Calvinistic for me. If the end is known, then all the actors have to be in the right place, at the right time, in the right costumes with the right set and the right props - otherwise the entire production will flop...if God knows the end, he knows the entire play in detail from the beginning and we are just reading from a script...every letter I type - even the words I misspell - must be known before I even sit down to type...otherwise, I might end up in an entirely different finale - different play - from what God intended. I just can't believe that - even if I though it might be true I would refuse to believe it for the sake of the "play".

Ah, there is one more concept I need to explain in my Advaita Vedanta viewpoint. Advaita=Non-Dual=God and creation are not-two.

It is sparks/rays of God/Brahman playing all the roles. The feeling that there is a myriad of separate individuals is an illusion ('Maya' in Hinduism). For creative sport, Brahman wills this illusion on himself.

We have the power of illusion analogously when we watch a dramatic movie. We identify with the characters as being real during the movie as opposed to thinking that we are just seeing some comfortable pampered Hollywood actor making the big bucks. We allow ourselves to play along with the illusion to enjoy creative art. We at higher level know the movie's events are pre-determined but we still enjoy the suspense and drama of the movie as we are watching.

So ultimately there is only one free will and that is God's/Brahman's. But we are that Brahman with the free will. Brahman thinks plays and experiences them for creative artistic sport.

 

[siti]

We at higher level know the movie's events are pre-determined but we still enjoy the suspense and drama of the movie as we are watching.

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.

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.

 

[shunyadragon]

What's the difference between "choices by God" and "Will of God"?

'Will of God' does not make choices.

If they're not "free" then God lacks free will - doesn't "he"? Its not a problem to me, I am perfectly OK with a "God" that just does what "Gods" do without thinking about it...but if necessity is laid upon God, that surely is a problem for theistic theologies - isn't it? How could God "intervene" to prevent this or that catastrophe (natural or anthropogenic") without making a choice? Are the advents of the various Messengers pre-ordained - if not, how could God be said to be omniscient? If yes, then God has no choice but to send them at the appointed time. Is that the "Will of God"? Or a bare necessity? And if it is all known and pre-ordained - then so, presumably, is each person's response to the Messengers - otherwise how would God know if and when to send the next one? So the "Most Great Peace" was never going to happen anyway...it is a big theological problem for theistic models of deity if God either cannot or does not make choices and an even bigger one if he does as far as I can see.

Again . . . Choices and Free Will versus No Free Will is the nature of humans issue, and humans do have a degree of Free Will more in the concept of compatabilism.

God does not intervene in the hands on manner of the anthropomorphic God(s) of ancient religions. This is an ancient human view of God.

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

Theistic theologians of ancient religions have a lot of problems clinging to ancient mythology, and negating the universal.