|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: FREE WILL....... or is it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2302 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
Hi all,
I may be in way over my head, but here goes anything.... If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then he knows how any particular being he allows to be born will turn out. With this foreknowledge, the fact that he allowed a being to be born that will turn out to be a murderer, a moral person, an athiest, a Christian, etc, HAS to mean that there was no choice on the part of the created being. Taking an example like Shiloh's 132lb son that wanted to be an offensive tackle...the father in this case does not have infallible foreknowledge...he is using knowledge of the game dynamics etc, to make a very good assumption that his son will not be able to play this position (or if allowed will get hurt playing it). Let's twist this around a bit....
Does the son have any choice (free will) in his damnation or salvation (or his football career) given that the father knows what will happen if he allows the child to be conceived and born? Does the father have any right to judge the son's football career given that "HE" stacked the deck against the son? It seems to me that omniscience and omnipotence in a creator cannot exist along side free will in the created. This also seems to beg the question of omnibenevolence. It seems to me that an omniscient/potent god allows beings to exist for the sole purpose of damnation. Someone please tell me if my simple logic is off. ------------------Asgara "An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I'd say your simple logic is right on. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2302 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
Thanks John,
nice to get some confirmation that my brain DOES still work at times ------------------Asgara "An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1478 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
OK ... this gets tricky ... and I'm not sure that I am
right, but... Knowing how something will turn out doesn't makethat pre-determined. If I have a computer program with a bunch of conditionallogic ... but know what the condition states will be prior to running it, I know what will happen. That doesn't mean it had to, only that it did. Poor analogy ... cause you should always know what acomputer program will do (except when you don't and it goes pop!) I don't actually accept 'free will' exactly anyhow ... I prefer'constrained will'. We all have different backgrounds and pre-dispositions whichin any given situation limit the choices between which we select as well as allow us to weigh which available option to go with. If you know enough about someone you can be failry accurateabout what they will do in a given situation ... that doesn't mean that's what they had to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2302 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
Hi Peter,
I agree with you on free will. I too, see it as more of a constrained choice. Constrained by our heredity and environment. My argument was in regards to the christian concept of free will and an omniscient, omnipotent, infallible creator. With mankind's admitedly non-omniscience, of course knowing how something will turn out does not make it pre-determined. BUT, if you throw in a creator with all the atributes claimed of the god of the bible, free will cannot exist. Yes, the computer analogy is lousy , but I'm going to continue it anyway. Say you write a program that by your conditions will always pick choice A out of several options. Say you know that the other options are moot because the way the program is written A is the only outcome. If you run the program and A is the result, you can't sit back and say that there were several options and A was chosen by the computer, it was pre-determined, by you, that A was the ONLY outcome. My argument was that omniscience in a creator and free will in the created are mutually exclusive. ------------------Asgara "An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1478 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
... hmmm .... I see what you mean.
If God has loaded the deck, and knows what the environmenthe has set up will make people do then they don't really have a choice. I was only thinking of omniscience not omnipotence too. I still think that knowing the outcome before it happens doesn'tmean there wasn't free will ... but if you stack the environment to make one outcome be THE outcome then it's gone. OK. I agree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Agent Uranium [GPC] Inactive Member |
I don't now though. I think my feelings have changed from reading too much Quantum Mechanics, Physics, etc. As with good old Schroedinger's Cat interacting with something changes it irrevocably. God as an omniscient (and therefore never wrong) Being would force us onto a certain path simply by knowing that we would take it. If He knows our future then he has predestined it simply by His power to see the future. ------------------
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Asgara writes: My argument was that omniscience in a creator and free will in the created are mutually exclusive. I would go further than that, Asgara. I think that omniscience excludes even the free will of the omniscient being itself. An omniscient being knows everything there is to know. 'Everything there is to know' includes all future actions of every being there is, or ever will be. So an omniscient being must necessarily know all its own future actions. But if it does, then it cannot choose to do anything other than what it already knows it will do. And if it cannot do that, then it has no free will. One could even go so far as to conclude that omniscience excludes omnipotence. After all, a minimum requirement for omnipotence is free will. Thus, if a being is omniscient, [it cannot have free will, and if it has no free will,] it can not be omnipotent. It gets worse. If an omniscient being cannot be omnipotent, it cannot know what it is like to be omnipotent. But if it cannot know that, then it doesn’t know everything. And if it doesn’t know everything, then it isn’t omniscient. The conclusion is a contradiction: if a being is omniscient, then it isn’t omniscient. Therefore a being cannot be omniscient. It could well be that there are some mistakes in my reasoning. If so, feel free, anybody, to point them out, I’m open to criticism. On a sidenote: I notice that, each time some form of infinity is involved (omniscience = infinite knowledge, omnipotence = infinite power), something becomes impossible. Is it possible that ‘infinity’ exists solely as a theoretical concept and has no link to reality? That no quality of anything that exists in reality can be infinite? That there is no infinitely large universe, no infinitely small particle, no infinitely short timespan, et cetera? Ciao. ------------------"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas N. Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Parasomnium writes:
quote: I think you just equivocated on the word "everything." That is, you have started with "everything" meaning "things that are actually going to happen" and then switched to "everything" meaning "every conceivable thing." For example, if I take out a standard deck of 52 cards and you draw one, I know all the possible results. I know "what it's like" for you to have drawn any of the 52 possibilities. However, I don't know what card you actually drew until I look at it. Omniscience doesn't mean knowledge about all conceptualizations because some conceptualizations are physically impossible. When you draw a card from the deck, you don't get snake-eyes. Omniscience is about knowing actualities. If I'm a good magician, I can make you think you've had a free choice in picking your card but actually force you to draw a card of my choosing. I can "conceive" of you drawing another card, but my "omniscience" comes from knowing that you were actually going to draw the specific one you did. Now, before the analogy runs away, let's not get into the question of my "forcing" the card upon you. An omniscient person who, upon asking you to draw a card, knows what card you are going to draw without having consciously to do anything to make you pick that card. I agree that omniscience removes free will. But omniscience does not mean non-omniscience. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Rrhain writes: I think you just equivocated on the word "everything." That is, you have started with "everything" meaning "things that are actually going to happen" and then switched to "everything" meaning "every conceivable thing." I'm afraid I do not agree. I said that 'everything there is to know' includes all future actions of every being there is, or ever will be. I used 'include' to indicate that I meant that "all future actions (etc.)" comprise a subset. They comprise a subset of the set of all knowable facts. It goes without saying that a 'knowable fact' must be logically possible. The number of horns on a unicorn is a knowable fact, whether a unicorn exists or not. Another knowable fact is, for example, the amount of time needed for ten buddhist monks to count all the grains of sand in the courtyard of their monastery, which is probably never actually going to happen, but knowable, in principle. You said that "omniscience is about knowing actualities", but I think it's also about knowing possibilities. A truly omniscient being not only knows everything about what has happened or will happen, but also everything about what would happen, if things were going differently. And all of that is still a subset. One can also know facts that have nothing to do with things happening, but rather with things being. For instance, the 10^99th digit of pi has a certain value which can be known. Nothing much happens there. Now, contingent on whether omnipotence is logically possible, the set of 'all knowable facts' also includes 'what it's like to be omnipotent'. So I think I used the word 'everything' in the same sense (of "all knowable facts") on both occasions and that my reductio ad absurdum regarding the possibility of omniscience still stands. ------------------"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas N. Adams [This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 10-10-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
A knowable fact could be "psychologistically" possible even if we did not know how or why the incident points subseted are commersurable or congruent or NOT following a Greek parrallel. Logicism and psychologism do not always lead to the same lead back salamder's Zigzag red gene nor is Kripke's philosophy the only remedy to Nozick's F in class. read and red sound like lead and led. HOW else could I get committed for mental reasons when I was asking if there was only something PHYSCIALLY wrong and yet the state of Florida tried to use the LOGIC of my TWO REASONS to claim if only a placebo some psychological effect? Why=/=How! The teleogical ideal was missing. This is not "idealism" however the logic likes the ear of the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Parasomnium responds to me:
quote: Why? What point is there in cogitating about things known to be impossible? What is the functional difference from within the system between a being that knows even phantom impossible outcomes and one that only knows what is actually going to happen? Why include the chocolate sprinkles?
quote: Why do you think being is a non-action?
quote: No, it doesn't. If omnipotence never, ever happens, then being omniscient does not include it. Why cogitate on things known to be impossible? What is the functional difference within the system between a being that knows everything that ever has or ever will happen and the same being with chocolate sprinkles? I would say that things that cannot exist do not exist and thus are not part of "everything." ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
its not necessarily "wrong". It may be "right" for Gould to think he is correct about two magesteria and to agree with your judgement on the basis of a certain relative world probalism but if one KNOWS (not God necessarily) that there is position or point of veiw which IS NOT a CERTAIN- (I mean one that we can have no doubt has at least existed historically) DUALSIM of natural result of Cartesianism on Newtonianism then stochasticsm can still be redolent and the recedent trajectory not necessarily only read as out of Laplacian infinite intellect. You seem to have judged beauty or teleology and not a set of divergence, convergence, homology, analogy and homoplasy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024