|
Author
|
Topic: All Knowing God proves problematic
|
straightree
Member (Idle past 4780 days) Posts: 57 From: Near Olot, Spain Joined: 09-26-2008
|
Free will
Hi Chessmaster, I think you are making refference to the basic problem of free will existance. It has been very central to philosophical debate, as stated in wikipedia: "The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought." I think that free will is a conquest of human mind. I do not think the rest of animals may act with much free will, if any at all. And also think that for humans, it is not free, and it requires some training. As an extreme example, think of the little free will left to a person subject to drug-dependence.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Chessmaster, posted 12-07-2008 6:24 PM | | Chessmaster has seen this message but not replied |
|
straightree
Member (Idle past 4780 days) Posts: 57 From: Near Olot, Spain Joined: 09-26-2008
|
|
Message 15 of 82 (491108)
12-11-2008 5:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 10 by Blue Jay
12-11-2008 10:49 AM
|
|
determinism and free will
I think that only the actions that are the result of objective causes may be foreseen. That is, that are deterministic. If we imagine that we could build a perfect computer, that contained all the past and present data, and all the laws that govern the universe, then if I have free will, the machine can not predict what my actions will be. Therefore, to think that God, being omniscient, knows what the actions of men, that he has made free, will be, has no sense. This does not diminish God greatness, but underscores the big gift He has given to humans: free will.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 10 by Blue Jay, posted 12-11-2008 10:49 AM | | Blue Jay has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 17 by Blue Jay, posted 12-11-2008 6:58 PM | | straightree has not replied |
|
straightree
Member (Idle past 4780 days) Posts: 57 From: Near Olot, Spain Joined: 09-26-2008
|
|
|
Message 30 of 82 (491243)
12-12-2008 6:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by Percy
12-11-2008 7:47 PM
|
|
Hi Percy,
quote:
The claim is that omniscience and free will cannot exist in the same universe.
The subject of omniescience is all that can be known. If something has a nature that makes it impossible to be known, it can not be included in omniscience. Since a free choice, that results from the faculty of free will is not a priory knowble, it does not pertain to the omniscience realm.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by Percy, posted 12-11-2008 7:47 PM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 31 by subbie, posted 12-12-2008 6:29 PM | | straightree has replied | | | Message 35 by Percy, posted 12-13-2008 10:10 AM | | straightree has replied |
|
straightree
Member (Idle past 4780 days) Posts: 57 From: Near Olot, Spain Joined: 09-26-2008
|
|
|
Message 32 of 82 (491248)
12-12-2008 6:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 31 by subbie
12-12-2008 6:29 PM
|
|
quote:
A cogent, clear resolution to the contradiction. Of course, it depends on a certain definition of omniscience. Do you have any evidence that your definition is the one that people of faith use when they are talking about an omniscient god?
The population of people of faith is not uniform. I only can say that I am in a section of this people that uses this definition. This is a quotation from wikipedia, on the subject of omniscience: quote:
It is not possible for God to know the result of a free human choice. Omniscience should therefore be interpreted to mean "knowledge of everything that can be known".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by subbie, posted 12-12-2008 6:29 PM | | subbie has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 33 by subbie, posted 12-12-2008 6:54 PM | | straightree has replied |
|
straightree
Member (Idle past 4780 days) Posts: 57 From: Near Olot, Spain Joined: 09-26-2008
|
|
|
Message 38 of 82 (491298)
12-13-2008 5:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by subbie
12-12-2008 6:54 PM
|
|
quote:
And I acknowledge that there are those who take this approach. Would you acknowledge that there are those who do not? That some, perhaps most, instead hold the seemingly contradictory view that is the subject of this thread?
It is clear that there are those who do not take the same approach, we can see some examples in this thread, but as to the size of each section, I will not venture any opinion.
quote:
This dichotomy of views raises the following question: which of the views is more consistent with the bible's description of god as omniscient?
I think this question would open a whole new subject. Nevertheless, I have to admit to you that, at the moment, I am not in an able position to answer it. But, as I consider that it is a very good question, I will do my homework for a future accasion. I have also to say, that regarding the Bible, i am not at all literallist.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by subbie, posted 12-12-2008 6:54 PM | | subbie has not replied |
|
straightree
Member (Idle past 4780 days) Posts: 57 From: Near Olot, Spain Joined: 09-26-2008
|
|
|
Message 39 of 82 (491300)
12-13-2008 6:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 35 by Percy
12-13-2008 10:10 AM
|
|
I agree that you may continue the debate with those that admit that God knows beforehand what our free decissions will be.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 35 by Percy, posted 12-13-2008 10:10 AM | | Percy has not replied |
|
straightree
Member (Idle past 4780 days) Posts: 57 From: Near Olot, Spain Joined: 09-26-2008
|
Re: a simple hand-wave
I think we are striding into omnipotence, but maybe it is not so avoidable. In someplace of this thread, I said that the object of omniscience could only be things that can be known. The parallel for omnipotence is things that can be done. God can not make a world in which it rains and not rains at the same time, or the wind is blowing and still. Equally, determinism and free will are excluding. I will quote C. S. Lewis "His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible."
|
™ Version 4.2