Omnipotence vs Free Will

[Dunemeister]

We're operating under different premises. My line of reasoning was predicated upon a few extremely sweeping assumptions, ie, an inerrant god who
can know every last detail about everything for all of time. (Your posited psychic & god differ in that they have limited knowledge of the future.)

Read again. The psychic has limited knowledge of the future -- just the odd bit she happens to think about. The god in my story is as omniscient as you like. My argument and conclusion still hold: God knows it because it's true and it's true because of what people will do.

It's not that I believe anything I said.....I'm just examining the consequences of those premises. To summarize, that which is known by God to be
true cannot be altered, lest his knowledge be less than perfect.

My argument refutes this. It's not nice just to gainsay.

Personally, I don't buy the premises I assumed. My view is that things happen, & we're free to react to them. Since it's untestable, I'm neither right nor
wrong....it's just how I view it.

It's fair enough to play devil's advocate.

 

[Dunemeister]

It can easily be proven that an omniscient, omnipotent benevolent being cannot exist.

To those without training in logic and who are predisposed to believe it.

Also, a supposedly omniscient being basically is helpless, since it knows all future outcomes, it also knows its own, and thus has no free will. Therefore, true omniscience cannot exist.

This commits the same error as the main argument of this thread, logical determinism.

 

[Revoltingest]

My argument refutes this.

I don't see how. Since I'm a slow learner, it would be easier to point out which step is in error in my argument.

It's not nice just to gainsay.

It reminds me of this (the short version).....

[youtube]teMlv3ripSM[/youtube]
YouTube - Monty Python - Argument Clinic

 

[Dunemeister]

I don't see how. Since I'm a slow learner, it would be easier to point out which step is in error in my argument.

The confusion relates to how the truth of a future-directed proposition might affect the behaviour of people. If F (a proposition about the future) is true, nothing follows about the free will of the people playing in the World Cup. Knowing F doesn't involve anything other than having reliable access to the truth value of F. Therefore, a being knowing F isn't interfering in the free actions of the players. This is true regardless how much a being supposedly knows about the future, some bits or even all of it.

The argument that knowing the future eliminates free will is basically the argument of logical determinism. The confusion involves thinking that knowing a proposition about the future somehow changes things metaphysically. It doesn't.

It reminds me of this (the short version).....

One of my favourite sketches!

 

[Dunemeister]

Discussion of logical determinism:

Logical Determinism / Fatalism

 

[Wandered Off]

The confusion involves thinking that knowing a proposition about the future somehow changes things metaphysically. It doesn't.

I agree that knowing changes nothing. However, if the future CAN be known, then it must exist already, and that is what compromises free will IMO, not the knowledge itself.

 

[Revoltingest]

The confusion involves thinking that knowing a proposition about the future somehow changes things metaphysically. It doesn't.

I don't propose to change anything in the metaphysical world. I only posited something about it & reasoned from there.
I'm beginning to think that some are attaching meaning & significance to my silly exercise. To those of you doing this....stop that!

 

[Justin Thyme]

I have a two sons that are both grown now but when they were younger I could predict their actions and reactions almost perfectly. Because I knew what they were going to do and how they were going to react to situations did not change the fact that they made choices for themselves.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have a two sons that are both grown now but when they were younger I could predict their actions and reactions almost perfectly. Because I knew what they were going to do and how they were going to react to situations did not change the fact that they made choices for themselves.

Did you ever play poker with them? You could be set for life!

 

[Wandered Off]

I have a two sons that are both grown now but when they were younger I could predict their actions and reactions almost perfectly. Because I knew what they were going to do and how they were going to react to situations did not change the fact that they made choices for themselves.

That's not actual foreknowledge, though. It's using your past experience to predict, and it was entirely possible for your sons to surprise you. You're talking more about "foreguessing"... Foreknowledge implies that the future cannot possibly deviate from what is already known.

 

[Justin Thyme]

Did you ever play poker with them? You could be set for life!

Yes, I did. Unfortunately we used my money.

 

[Skwim]

The future will be what it will be, and not any differently.
While perhaps a statement of the obvious, I believe it goes to the heart of the issue. Any particular condition at any particular point of time in the future is determined by all the cause/effects that led up to that condition. The condition is what it is; that is, it is not otherwise.

Take any past event X at time T-2 and a possible alternative event Y, which necessarily never occurred. Now go back in time before event X, at time T-1, when one may be wondering whether X or Y would eventually occur. As a matter of actuality at time T-1, the future at time T-2 holds only one outcome, X. Now, using a devise I created that can look into the future, I see that X, not Y, is occurring. Does my ability to foresee the future determine it? No. But my ability to see that X rather than Y occurs does function as a truth of the inevitability of X. Because I have seen X occurring I know Y is an impossibility. X was determined by whatever forces brought it into being, and it was these very same forces that eliminated the possibility of Y.

Now, suppose that X and Y are defined as actions of the will. Could I will Y? Nope. The action of bringing X into being is seen as the inevitable outcome of all the factors leading up to it. Looking back from the present it's obvious the will could not have done any differently than it did. Y was never an option. And, from time T-1 it is recognized that at time T-2 the will is not free do to do anything other than X. The events leading up to X insure it.

So, at time T-1 god's omniscience, or my future-seeing device, has established the truth of X, and the falseness of Y. The will will not be free to do Y, or Z, or even ‡.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hey, Skwim...that looks like a rational argument, but in narrative form it's really hard to follow.
The form of a math proof (a single statement per line) would make it easier on us ADD sufferers.

 

[Skwim]

Hey, Skwim...that looks like a rational argument, but in narrative form it's really hard to follow.
The form of a math proof (a single statement per line) would make it easier on us ADD sufferers.

Sorry, but I'm not that adept at logical constructions. Syllogisms are okay, but I falter when it comes to formal sentential logic.

 

[idea]

Ok, so Christians state that God gives humans Free Will. Also, God is Omnipotent. Omnipotent means God knows "everything;" the past, the present, and the future. So, God knows exactly what choices a person will make, knows what sins they will partake in, and in a sense, the person's judgment is already decided before they are even born. A person's fate is sealed, because no matter how you argue it, God knows in his Omnipotence what will happen. People are created to be sent to hell and/or heaven, free will or not.

If this made sense to you, then how do you explain things? God cannot be Omnipotent and we still have Free Will. It is a contradiction. Either God is not all-knowing, or people really don't have a choice in what happens after they die. It is known before they even exist.

Knowing something is different than causing it. Free will has to do with who causes what, not who knows what. We cause it, so it is our will.

Ex: I can look at the TV guide and "know" what will be on TV, but I did not cause it. I did not take away the will of any of the programmers merely by knowing what will be on TV.

The future is set in stone, yes, but we are the ones who set it in stone, so it is our will, our agency.

 

[Dunemeister]

I agree that knowing changes nothing. However, if the future CAN be known, then it must exist already, and that is what compromises free will IMO, not the knowledge itself.

Well technically, it's not the future that is known but propositions ABOUT the future. A proposition is merely an abstract object that has truth value. The proposition's content is true insofar as it expresses the way the world is (in the case of propositions about the future, the way the world will be).

So F being true just means that there is a proposition declaring the truth about the winner of the future World Cup. The fact that the proposition is true has no bearing whatsoever on the freedom of the actors who make the proposition true by their actions. There's certainly no reason to think of the future as somehow "real" or "existing" before the events described in the proposition take place. In fact, I'm confused why one would be tempted to think so. Thoughts?

 

[Dunemeister]

I don't propose to change anything in the metaphysical world. I only posited something about it & reasoned from there.
I'm beginning to think that some are attaching meaning & significance to my silly exercise. To those of you doing this....stop that!

Well, I didn't realize you were just joking. I'll stop responding to your posts, then.

 

[Dunemeister]

That's not actual foreknowledge, though. It's using your past experience to predict, and it was entirely possible for your sons to surprise you. You're talking more about "foreguessing"... Foreknowledge implies that the future cannot possibly deviate from what is already known.

Yes, but in such a way as not to compromise freedom. There is a truth about the future. But that truth is determined by what we do; what we do is not determined by the truth. Getting this logical priority backward lays behind the confusion expressed in the OP.

 

[Thief]

Knowing something is different than causing it. Free will has to do with who causes what, not who knows what. We cause it, so it is our will.

Ex: I can look at the TV guide and "know" what will be on TV, but I did not cause it. I did not take away the will of any of the programmers merely by knowing what will be on TV.

The future is set in stone, yes, but we are the ones who set it in stone, so it is our will, our agency.

I like the first two lines.
Allow me to rebuttal the last one.

The past is set in stone. The future is flexed by our immediate willfulness.

 

[Skwim]

I like the first two lines.
Allow me to rebuttal the last one.

The past is set in stone. The future is flexed by our immediate willfulness.

And what determines what that willfulness does?

Note: "I do" or anything similar won't cut it.