Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8752 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-30-2017 7:09 AM
127 online now:
CRR, PaulK, RAZD (3 members, 124 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeliverUsFromEvolution
Post Volume:
Total: 809,272 Year: 13,878/21,208 Month: 3,360/3,605 Week: 146/556 Day: 8/89 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3132
33
3435
...
38Next
Author Topic:   Free will vs Omniscience
Stile
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 481 of 559 (785896)
06-13-2016 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 472 by NoNukes
06-09-2016 8:30 PM


Re: Free Will and determinism from my Christian perspective
NoNukes writes:

Stile writes:

All the evidence we have seems to fit this picture, and it's the simplest picture without adding unnecessary elements.

What evidence?

The evidence of everyday life.
The evidence that no testing has ever produced someone (or something) that can predict the future in any meaningful way.
The evidence that the universe has a speed limit.
The evidence that time travels in one direction.

How are you able to determine via observation exactly how 'free will' works?

I'm not.
I never claimed to be able to determine exactly how free will works.

I claimed that the evidence we have "fits the picture" of no one being able to read the future.
That could be because no one can because it's impossible.
That could be because we just don't know how yet.
That could be because it's impossible for humans, but not impossible for some other being.

But it's the easiest, most parsimonious explanation right now.
That's all I'm claiming. I'm not claiming that it's right. In fact, if you read my posts on the subject, I'm claiming that we can't even run meaningful tests on it right now because we can't seem to think up any that would lead to conclusive results.

How do you test the effect of omniscience?

I have no idea.
But I never claimed to be able to, or that such a thing is a requirement in general, either.

Observation suggests that we have at least the illusion of free will.

Agreed. Wording this statement another way, one could say that "observation 'seems to fit the picture' that no one can read the future and that we have free will." Huh... looks like we agree.

So we might lean towards saying that free will exists. However, we don't have any way of simulating time machines, omniscient beings, all powerful OZ's or rocks too heavy for God to lift.

Fully agreed, in fact... I said it before you did

So how are you concluding that the evidence is on one side or the other?

I'm not.
Never have.
I'm at a loss as to how you could read even a few posts of mine in this 450+ message thread and get that impression.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2016 8:30 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2016 11:23 AM Stile has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9557
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 482 of 559 (785905)
06-13-2016 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 481 by Stile
06-13-2016 9:29 AM


Re: Free Will and determinism from my Christian perspective
The evidence that no testing has ever produced someone (or something) that can predict the future in any meaningful way.

How does that address the question of whether omniscience and free will are incompatible? Omniscience apparently does not even exist.

How are you able to determine via observation exactly how 'free will' works?

I would think such an observation would be necessary if we are going to claim that we have evidence that free will exists.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by Stile, posted 06-13-2016 9:29 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by Stile, posted 06-13-2016 12:05 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 483 of 559 (785912)
06-13-2016 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 482 by NoNukes
06-13-2016 11:23 AM


Re: Free Will and determinism from my Christian perspective
NoNukes writes:

Stile writes:

The evidence that no testing has ever produced someone (or something) that can predict the future in any meaningful way.

How does that address the question of whether omniscience and free will are incompatible? Omniscience apparently does not even exist.

It doesn't.
It addresses the question of having evidence that "fits the picture" for free will existing because no one can read the future.
Which is what we were talking about for that evidence.
Why would you think it would address something different from what we were talking about?

I agree that omniscience is a silly, immature concept. It seems to come from a "my dad is bigger than your dad" child's mentality of a God.

If the definition of omniscience includes a being that created the universe while being the source for the ideas of what that universe is going to contain, as well as what all inhabitants are going to "choose" to do... then I do not think omniscience and free will can co-exist.

If "omniscience" does not include such a trait. That is, if the choice to do or do not is made by us and simply "observed/described" by an omniscient being (regardless of whether or not that observation is interpreted by us as being in the 'future' or 'past' or whenever...) then I can logically see free will still existing. Although it is in a convoluted, unintuitive, needs-a-lot-of-"just-so"-help imagined scenario.

Omniscience apparently does not even exist.

Ha I would go so far as to say those who use the term do not even understand what they're saying.
The idea itself is simply so... all encompassing... that you might as well say "I've counted to a kajillion +1!!"

I would think such an observation would be necessary if we are going to claim that we have evidence that free will exists.

I agree.
Good thing I've never claimed such a thing.

Again, my claim is that the evidence we have "fits the picture" of free will existing.

I do not claim that free will actually does exist.
I do not claim that free will actually does not exist.
I do not claim to be able to know one way or the other.
I do claim that we are currently unable to know one way or the other.
I do claim that what we do know "fits the picture" of free will existing.

Of course, what we do know also "fits the picture" of free will not-existing as well (which is why we don't know either way...).

You seem to be taking something from me that was said in the context of "eh, this is my best guess, given what we currently know..." and you're trying to twist it into the context of "it is definitely, absolutely this way!"

You're simply mistaken about the context of my statements.
You can re-read my posts and find your error.
You can simply accept this clarification of my own stance in this post and move past your error.
Or you can continue to be wrong about my position.

Doesn't make a difference to me. I'm having fun


This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2016 11:23 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 485 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2016 1:24 PM Stile has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13038
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 484 of 559 (785913)
06-13-2016 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by Phat
06-13-2016 3:01 AM


Re: Free Will and determinism from my Christian perspective
Phat writes:

So tell Him that.


Don't you think He reads my posts?

Phat writes:

Lets just have a great communion today...in the present moment.


My free will says, "Let's not."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by Phat, posted 06-13-2016 3:01 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 489 by Phat, posted 06-13-2016 4:19 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9557
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 485 of 559 (785918)
06-13-2016 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 483 by Stile
06-13-2016 12:05 PM


Re: Free Will and determinism from my Christian perspective
It addresses the question of having evidence that "fits the picture" for free will existing because no one can read the future.
Which is what we were talking about for that evidence.

I've requoted the paragraph that drew my initial comment.

I think the way Cat Sci is explaining free will (the present is a fundamental reality of how time works, and therefore no one... not even a God... can "see the future" without removing free will). Is the most likely candidate of how things actually work.

There is no evidence whatsoever that whatever we experience in terms of free will exists despite God's existence, because of God's existence, or because of God's non existence. All we have is an impression of free will and a dearth of evidence about the later.

I can only conclude that you mean evidence in a very loose sense. Namely that you know of facts that do not contradict your belief and that you are not aware of any that contradict it. The problem is that, the evidence is not contrary to the opposite conclusion either and thus it is not truly evidence in any strong sense.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by Stile, posted 06-13-2016 12:05 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by Stile, posted 06-13-2016 2:35 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 486 of 559 (785928)
06-13-2016 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by NoNukes
06-13-2016 1:24 PM


Re: Free Will and determinism from my Christian perspective
I can only conclude that you mean evidence in a very loose sense.

Ha!
You think?

That's what I've been telling you this whole time. You're making an error in judgement on the context of my phrasing. I've been trying to point this out to you all day. I think you're starting to catch on, though...
Just last post I straight up told you that the context was "eh, this is my best guess, given what we currently know..."

And, again, you could have known that by simply reading the entire paragraph where you got that quote from.

Stile writes:

I think the way Cat Sci is explaining free will (the present is a fundamental reality of how time works, and therefore no one... not even a God... can "see the future" without removing free will). Is the most likely candidate of how things actually work. All the evidence we have seems to fit this picture, and it's the simplest picture without adding unnecessary elements

Message 469

Even the part you quoted says "...most likely candidate..." in it.

NoNukes writes:

There is no evidence whatsoever that whatever we experience in terms of free will exists despite God's existence, because of God's existence, or because of God's non existence. All we have is an impression of free will and a dearth of evidence about the later.

Everything I've said, and everything you've quoted of me has agreed with this statement 100%.

Namely that you know of facts that do not contradict your belief and that you are not aware of any that contradict it. The problem is that, the evidence is not contrary to the opposite conclusion either and thus it is not truly evidence in any strong sense.

Ha ha... you sound very familiar... wait, what did I say to you just last post?

Stile writes:

I do claim that what we do know "fits the picture" of free will existing.

Of course, what we do know also "fits the picture" of free will not-existing as well (which is why we don't know either way...).

Is there any other ideas of mine that you'd like to agree with?

So, since you haven't moved from your erroneous stance at all, I am unable to alter my conclusion in response to you. Here you go again:

Stile writes:

You're simply mistaken about the context of my statements.
You can re-read my posts and find your error.
You can simply accept this clarification of my own stance in this post and move past your error.
Or you can continue to be wrong about my position.

Doesn't make a difference to me. I'm having fun

Ha ha Hope you sort out your confusion, mate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2016 1:24 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 487 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2016 2:55 PM Stile has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9557
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 487 of 559 (785931)
06-13-2016 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 486 by Stile
06-13-2016 2:35 PM


Re: Free Will and determinism from my Christian perspective
Even the part you quoted says "...most likely candidate..." in it.

Of course everything in a post is an opinion, but how do you calculate or estimate odds on something like this?

Ha ha... you sound very familiar... wait, what did I say to you just last post?

Which simply means that I don't disagree with one or more statements in your post.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 486 by Stile, posted 06-13-2016 2:35 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by Stile, posted 06-13-2016 3:20 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 488 of 559 (785936)
06-13-2016 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 487 by NoNukes
06-13-2016 2:55 PM


Re: Free Will and determinism from my Christian perspective
NoNukes writes:

Of course everything in a post is an opinion, but how do you calculate or estimate odds on something like this?

Like I said. All I have is: "eh, this is my best guess, given what we currently know..."

But, for some of it, I use the idea of parsimony.

Including "God" is an extra agent... there is an explanation without "God" so I go with it because it's simpler.
Including "the ability to read the future..." is an extra ability we haven't witnessed as of yet.
Including "the universe might be wholly deterministic..." is an idea that cannot be tested as of yet.

Does it mean excluding these things is right? No, not at all.
Does it mean excluding these things makes my best guess more likely? Nope. Well... an argument can be made for "maybe... kinda..." here based on the historical average of parsimony, but in all exactness... Nope.
Does it mean I'm going with my current answer with a grain of salt until more information can be found? Yup. And that's all I ever said.

I am not claiming it's correct.

"...best guess..."

Which simply means that I don't disagree with one or more statements in your post.

Yay! We can be a family again!

((Hugs))


This message is a reply to:
 Message 487 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2016 2:55 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9315
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 489 of 559 (785950)
06-13-2016 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by ringo
06-13-2016 12:10 PM


Re: Free Will and determinism from my Christian perspective
ringo writes:

My free will says, "Let's not."

Party pooper!

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by ringo, posted 06-13-2016 12:10 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Hawkins
Member
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 490 of 559 (786152)
06-17-2016 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kader
12-28-2006 1:13 PM


Because omniscience is based off omnipotence. God's omnipotence allows Him to choose to ignore you completely. For example, in a so-called permanent separation from God He can choose to ignore you completely.

In this case, you will continue to exercise your freewill, God has no interests in knowing what you will do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kader, posted 12-28-2006 1:13 PM Kader has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 491 by Phat, posted 06-17-2016 4:05 PM Hawkins has not yet responded
 Message 492 by Diomedes, posted 06-18-2016 12:09 PM Hawkins has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9315
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 491 of 559 (786162)
06-17-2016 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 490 by Hawkins
06-17-2016 1:24 PM


What GOD Thinks
Critics would argue, however, that if such a God DID exist with the characteristics you mention..they would have no interest in knowing Him even if He allowed it. Perhaps we need to agree on what God actually thinks....which is itself humorous when you think about it.

Personally I believe that the Creator of all seen and unseen wanted to have a relationship with us. Granted, critics would assert that I concluded this only from dogma which I was taught. The only evidence that i could present--apart from my beliedf and opinion--is scriptural...but then again critics would assert that scripture was entirely derived from the imagination of man rather than divinely inspired.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by Hawkins, posted 06-17-2016 1:24 PM Hawkins has not yet responded

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 608
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 492 of 559 (786185)
06-18-2016 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 490 by Hawkins
06-17-2016 1:24 PM


Because omniscience is based off omnipotence

Technically, omniscience and omnipotence are mutually distinct. Omniscience refers to the capacity to know everything. Omnipotence refers to having unlimited power. But neither is a requirement of the other.

God's omnipotence allows Him to choose to ignore you completely

That is probably the lamest super power I have ever heard of. I don't think kids will be clamoring to the comic book store to see the latest edition of the adventures of 'Ignore Man'.
Kidding aside, you don't need to be omnipotent to ignore anything. Us lowly humans do that all the time. Heck, my cat ignores me when she feels like it.

In this case, you will continue to exercise your freewill, God has no interests in knowing what you will do.

That goes counter to most religions I am aware of. But hey, if you subscribe to the Church of the Mighty Ignore, that is your prerogative.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by Hawkins, posted 06-17-2016 1:24 PM Hawkins has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by ringo, posted 06-18-2016 12:31 PM Diomedes has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13038
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 493 of 559 (786186)
06-18-2016 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 492 by Diomedes
06-18-2016 12:09 PM


Diomedes writes:

Technically, omniscience and omnipotence are mutually distinct.


Wouldn't the power to find out everything be close to omnipotence? Is there really a distinction between being able to find out anything and already knowing everything?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by Diomedes, posted 06-18-2016 12:09 PM Diomedes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by Phat, posted 06-18-2016 3:23 PM ringo has responded
 Message 495 by Diomedes, posted 06-19-2016 11:16 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9315
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 494 of 559 (786194)
06-18-2016 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 493 by ringo
06-18-2016 12:31 PM


Riddle me this and Google me that!
ringo writes:

Wouldn't the power to find out everything be close to omnipotence? Is there really a distinction between being able to find out anything and already knowing everything?

Nobody likes a know-it-all if the know-it-all uses their wisdom to belittle others. A know-it-all who shares their wisdom gains respect,however...and becomes a beloved teacher. Google knows close to everything only because everyone has contributed to the database. Google still doesn't know the inner thoughts of humans, however...

Power and knowledge are not synonymous.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by ringo, posted 06-18-2016 12:31 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by ringo, posted 06-19-2016 2:05 PM Phat has responded

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 608
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 495 of 559 (786248)
06-19-2016 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 493 by ringo
06-18-2016 12:31 PM


Wouldn't the power to find out everything be close to omnipotence? Is there really a distinction between being able to find out anything and already knowing everything?

It is a gray area to be sure. I was going somewhat by the Wikipedia definition:

quote:
Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence to only the deity of their faith. In the monotheistic philosophies of Abrahamic religions, omnipotence is often listed as one of a deity's characteristics among many, including omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence.

They are technically drawing a distinction between the different characteristics.

From my perspective, it would depend on how one categorizes 'unlimited power'. That can actually be interpreted many ways.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by ringo, posted 06-18-2016 12:31 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
3132
33
3435
...
38Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017