Is it possible for you to do anything that God did not already know you would do?

[Beaudreaux]

Dang I wish I could give frubals! I tried to say something similar (incompletely) a few dozen pages ago.

Why can't you give frubals???

 

[Willamena]

Why can't you give frubals???

Probably doesn't believe in them (so turned them off).

 

[Kay]

Probably doesn't believe in them (so turned them off).

I have to turn them on?!? Oh good grief. I'll go look.

 

[Storm]

You can turn them off?

 

[Kay]

I think I'm just frubal challenged. :sarcastic

 

[logician]

I KNEW you were going to say that.

NOw you're more in the realm of the paranormal.

 

[Falvlun]

Uh, okay. I never said omniscience was the cause, only that it was incompatible with free will. You're inventing an argument I never made, and that I don't disagree with.

What exactly are you arguing then? You asked for a logical contradiction between omniscience and freewill. I gave you a way that omniscience and freewill is compatable. I only jumped onto the "omniscience isn't the cause of freewill's demise" wagon because that's generally how these threads are laid out: Freewill can't exist because God's omniscient. The "because" implies a causal relationship.

Yes, if the future is unknowable. This has already been addressed as different than the standard type of ominscience argued by most religionists, which includes knowledge of all future events, and which was the type of ominiscience being addressed in this thread. I thought we already covered this.

I'm merely fighting for the concept of omniscience. I'm not fighting for the concept of the Christian God. I believe he has other attributes, when put in combination with omniscience, that would make free-will extremely unlikely. Arguing that "freewill is not compatable with the Christian God" is a different argument than "freewill is not compatable with omniscience", so you might want to clarify when you make statements such as the latter.

So, you're saying that your first premise was incorrectly stated then. Since the "if" condition is obviously unneccesary, the instead of reading "If the future is not known, then free-will exists. Argument premise", it should simply read "Free-will exists. Argument premise".

Call me crazy, but I disagree with your argument attempting to prove free-will exists, when its first premise is "free-will exists".

My first premise was written correctly. An "if/then" statement in formal logic simply provides a condition in which something may occur. I am saying that free will occurs when the future is unknown. This is simply one way in which free-will can occur... note that it is not the only way free-will can occur. If it were, then it would be an "if and only if" statement, not a simple "if/then".

Example:
If it is not raining, then I will walk to school.
If my mom has to use the car, then I will walk to school.

Suppose it is both raining, and mom has to use the car. The fact that I walk to school in no way harms the validity of either statement.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

My first premise was written correctly. An "if/then" statement in formal logic simply provides a condition in which something may occur. I am saying that free will occurs when the future is unknown. This is simply one way in which free-will can occur... note that it is not the only way free-will can occur. If it were, then it would be an "if and only if" statement, not a simple "if/then".

Right, but there are only two possible conditions: the future is either known, or not known. Are you saying that free-will exists if, and only if, the future is not known? If not, then your statement boils down to: if the future is known or unknown then free-will exists, thereby making the if statement unneccessary. This still leaves your first premise as "free-will exists".

 

[Falvlun]

I have been thinking a lot about this argument and I think it has a lot of merit. If the future exists now, then of course there can be no free will. I do not believe the future exists until it becomes the present and so I now understand earlier statements that only the present exists. Certainly the concept of the future exists, but future events have no existence until they happen in the present.

I really appreciate this.

As such, they are not knowable by you and I, but should be in the realm of knowledge for an omniscient God, and the BIble supports this view of Him. Prophecy alone speaks to God's knowledge of future events.

Good stuff! My issue with this argument is step 4 for reasons I have explained above.

Refresher: Step 4 God could not know the future unless the past (all the time that leads up to that future) happened first.

I agree with you in that Step 4 is the weakest link. However, the only way Step 4 could not be true is if God existed outside of time. If he existed within time, then he would be subject to the "nature of time", ie, the present must happen before the future, and the future can't be known until the present happens.

So, do you accept that God exists outside of time?

It also means that Biblical prophecy about future events like the apocalypse is not to be taken seriously. If you are right, then God is not at all sure that such things will come to pass.

I would think that God would know exactly those events that he will bring about. I made this argument once before: Since God is infinite, he already embodies all possible change. Therefore, he already knows precisely everything that he will do. Thus, prophecy could merely be those things he knows that he himself will bring about.

 

[Falvlun]

Right, but there are only two possible conditions: the future is either known, or not known. Are you saying that free-will exists if, and only if, the future is not known? If not, then your statement boils down to: if the future is known or unknown then free-will exists, thereby making the if statement unneccessary. This still leaves your first premise as "free-will exists".

To clarify, I am not making an "if and only if" statement.

I don't understand why you are reading my premise as "if the future is unknown or known..." My statement is ambivalent towards whether free-will exists when the future is known; it's simply saying, yes, when the future is unknown freewill does indeed exist.

If what you are saying is true, then basically no if/then statement could be made since there is a direct opposite for every "if" statement. I know this is not the case, since Modus Ponens is very much alive in logic arguments.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

My statement is ambivalent towards whether free-will exists when the future is known; it's simply saying, yes, when the future is unknown freewill does indeed exist.

Thank you, that is much clearer of a statement.

Okay, back to your original argument then:

1. If the future is not known, then free-will exists. Argument premise
2. The future is known (b/c God is omniscient) Argument premise
3. In order for the future to exist, the past for that future must also exist. Nature of time
4. God could not know the future unless the past (all the time that leads up to that future) happened first. Follows from 3
5. The past happens before the future is known. Follows from 4
6. Free-will exists in that past Follows from 1 and 5
7. Therefore, free-will exists when the future is known as well.

The problem comes in #4. In #2 you say that the future is known, and in #4 you say that future cannot be known unless everything prior to that future occurred first. So, essentially, this invalidates #2, because if everything prior to a point in time has already happened, then that particular point is no longer the future, it's the present.

 

[InfinityUnlocked]

You would expect that God knows everything... based on what's taught in most religions... so yes, he must know everything including how many children will die tomorrow of starvation... how many children will be brutalized, enslaved.... how many children will die from lack of medical attention... maybe a better question would be... why doesn't God help those who he knows ahead of time are going to die or go through some monstrous event?

 

[InfinityUnlocked]

Truth is... no one knows with absolute certainty how it all works or why... everything is just theory and speculation coming from the minds of humans no less... room for flawed thinking? Oh yeah.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Truth is... no one knows with absolute certainty how it all works or why... everything is just theory and speculation coming from the minds of humans no less... room for flawed thinking? Oh yeah.

Of course there is. We see it all the time on RF.

 

[Falvlun]

Thank you, that is much clearer of a statement.

Okay, back to your original argument then:

1. If the future is not known, then free-will exists. Argument premise
2. The future is known (b/c God is omniscient) Argument premise
3. In order for the future to exist, the past for that future must also exist. Nature of time
4. God could not know the future unless the past (all the time that leads up to that future) happened first. Follows from 3
5. The past happens before the future is known. Follows from 4
6. Free-will exists in that past Follows from 1 and 5
7. Therefore, free-will exists when the future is known as well.

The problem comes in #4. In #2 you say that the future is known, and in #4 you say that future cannot be known unless everything prior to that future occurred first. So, essentially, this invalidates #2, because if everything prior to a point in time has already happened, then that particular point is no longer the future, it's the present.

I see your point.

1. Perhaps it just goes to show that knowledge of the future is impossible inside of time. Outside of time, I don't think the conundrum you present would exist.
2. If you hold it at arm's reach, it does show how a decision in the past must be made in order for the present condition to exist. The choice was made. Claiming that you didn't have free-will once the present condition is known is asking for free-will twice.

If you are interested, this thread seems to have picked up right where this one left off:
Omniscience + Creator = No Free Will

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I see your point.

1. Perhaps it just goes to show that knowledge of the future is impossible inside of time. Outside of time, I don't think the conundrum you present would exist.

Not sure what you mean by "outside of time." If absolute knowledge of the future is known, then time has no meaning, other than as an illusion to those with limited knowledge.

2. If you hold it at arm's reach, it does show how a decision in the past must be made in order for the present condition to exist. The choice was made. Claiming that you didn't have free-will once the present condition is known is asking for free-will twice.

But the same criteria applies to all known events along the whole continuum of time - starting from the very first event.

If you are interested, this thread seems to have picked up right where this one left off:
Omniscience + Creator = No Free Will

Actually, it basically just seems to be a rehash of what was already covered about 50 times in this and other threads. I'll keep my eyes open for any logical refutation of the incompatibility of omniscience and free-will, but there's no point in telling the same people, the same things over and over, when they appear to be either incapable or unwilling to understand.