|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Free will: an illusion | |||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Sorry Ian, meant to reply last night...
wouldn't that mean that initial conditions a long long time ago were such so as to ensure I would type what I am typing now and also that which I will type tomorrow? In a way, yes, but it's not the way I would put it. From the persepctive of GR, th universe just is... a big static unchanging 4 dimensional object, containing all past and future times. You could just as well say that the condition that I am typing this now ensures the conditions in the early universe... or those on the other side of the universe "now". The universe is a big consistent whole. At least, that is the view from GR. But it's not been wrong yet
The very first hints of a person convicted by the holy spirit of their guilt. Heart warming. I thought you knew... I've been saved (at 14), baptised in water, by the Spirit, exercised Gifts, fallen away, come back, fallen away, etc. I attend a large Pentecostal-derived family church, and these days I'm in my heretical gnostic post-evangelical phase I'm also probably the only non-creationist in a congregation of 500+
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
The only thing that God doesn't know, is what choices we will make
Then this negates the concept of omniscience would you not say?If there is anything that he doesn't know then he doesn't know everything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
I leave the 'anytime' condition out of it and consider the future unknowable. I have no conflict with omniscience and free will.
Nor do I, as I told you before. But wouldn't you say that you are now the one placing limits on God?Doesn't "everything", by definition include.... everything? Isn't all time part of everything? Can "anything" (such as all time) NOT be part of everything? Now you are just confusing me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
In a way, yes, but it's not the way I would put it. From the persepctive of GR, the universe just is... a big static unchanging 4 dimensional object, containing all past and future times. You could just as well say that the condition that I am typing this now ensures the conditions in the early universe... or those on the other side of the universe "now". The universe is a big consistent whole. Okay - can't picture it myself. But assuming that there is no choice in the sense we mean choice but it is more "what will be will be (or in GR, is already or already has been or whatever", how do we arrive at a knowledge that that is the way it is - if the knowledge that that is the way it is was determined to be - whether it is that way or not?
I thought you knew... I've been saved (at 14) I didn't: Hallelujah
I'm in my heretical gnostic post-evangelical phase. I'm also probably the only non-creationist in a congregation of 500+ Considered as a black sheep but still a sheep I imagine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
If tomorrow I see you jump in a lake, have I removed your free will?
Uhhhh.... Yes. If I jump in the lake how can I choose to NOT jump in it? It is a past event. I have no power to change past events.
How about if I then travel back to today throgh a convenient wormhole, have I removed your free-will?
Again. Yes. To do anything other than what you have observed me do would be to change history and as you have argued with randman, you can't change history. This applies to future history too.
How about if I then tell you that tomorrow you will jump in the lake?
So how would you propose that I not jump in the lake then? If I don't then we have a paradox.
In any of these scenarios, have I removed your free-will? (assuming it was there to begin with)
Again a resounding YES. The same issue applies with time travel as with God's omniscience. the only way you can travel into the future is if all time already exists in a fixed pattern.The only alternative is Alternate possible futures and you don't know which time line you went into so when you saw me jump in the lake it was only one possible future. God doesn't have that problem since his "omniscience" allows him to know which possible future is the real one. Now, is your argument more to do with God being creator AND being omniscient that causes the problem?
I don't see how being the creator can have anything to do with it.In fact the two premises that we agreed to examine at the start of this thread do not assume that he is. Any omniscient being raises the same problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But wouldn't you say that you are now the one placing limits on God? I'm placing limits on omniscience. Is omniscience limitless? I would say no.
Doesn't "everything", by definition include.... everything?
Could it just include everything and not neccessarily everywhen?
Isn't all time part of everything?
It isn't clear. I don't think it is.
Can "anything" (such as all time) NOT be part of everything? No, anything can't NOT be a part of everything but some things can (not be a part of everything) and these are things that do not exist, because they are not things to begin with. The future is one of these things, IMO.
Now you are just confusing me. Better now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
It just struck me. It seems to me that "if what will be will be" is true then what will be will be and no one should concern themselves too much about it.
Well technically we aren't concerning ourselves about it since we really have no choice in anything we do or think.
Whats the big deal if we do not, in fact, have free will?
There isn't one. It doesn't matter in the least. This is just an exercise in logic.Either we are really thinking it through by exercising our free will or we have none and are following a predetermined path. Either way the outcome is the same. It appears to be free will to us because we do not "personally" have future knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Well technically we aren't concerning ourselves about it since we really have no choice in anything we do or think. If one is holding to the assumption of Q.1 and affirms the conclusion then there is no tecnnically about it. That is the way it is. But technically, you accept the sub-conclusions that follow on from the main conclusion - now try telling that to Crevo will ya
There isn't one (a big deal). It doesn't matter in the least. This is just an exercise in logic. Not if your are assuming the assumption and affirming the conclusion. You must (as you are doing) suspend affirming the conclusion of Q.1 in order to comment using logic and reason etc. This means the conclusion cannot actually in fact be. If it were then you couldn't step outside it to comment. Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : edit to add sub-conclusion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
Is omniscience limitless?
Since I would say yes, it is obvious that we aren't operating under the same definitions are we? I would say no. You have also agreed in an earlier post that if the future is "pre-determined" then we have no free will. Your disagreement with me and crevo appears to be an arbitrary one of definition. If we use yours then omniscience is limited (not limitless) and the whole problem evaporates like morning mist. If, however, you look at it by the agreed upon premise of this thread (ie. omniscience IS limitless) then what do you see?
No, anything can't NOT be a part of everything but some things can (not be a part of everything) and these are things that do not exist, because they are not things to begin with. The future is one of these things, IMO.
So how does prophecy work then? Anyway, I can happily accept and even agree with what you are saying but your argument is kinda meaningless when the premise of the question (for this thread only) is that God DOES know the future.
Better now?
Much better thanks. Particularly now that I know we have no real disagreement to argue about anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Codegate Member (Idle past 846 days) Posts: 84 From: The Great White North Joined: |
PurpleYouko writes: Then this negates the concept of omniscience would you not say? From a purely literal definition of the word, absolutely. In order for 'free will' to exist there must be a small exception clause. God knows every possible path that we may take in our lifetimes. That is quite omniscient in my opinion. The exception is, because God gave us the gift of 'free will' he is unable to know which of those paths we will follow. Perhaps because God is also omnipotent he decided to permanently remove his ability to know which choice we would make. As I think about it, assuming that the Xian god exists this isn't that far of a stretch. Omnipotent and omniscient except where he choose to hide our choices due to free will. This whole thing has been an interesting thought experiment. Thanks for bringing it up. Edited by Codegate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
Fair enough. I was dealing with the assumptions we started with and was pointing out that the consequential thinking of that core conclusion ("no free will") can't actually follow from that conclusion
Iano you keep saying that but so far you have failed to even addres teh pivotal question without first interjecting the assumption that we DO actually think and have freewill.Of course the question makes no sense in that context. Why are you unable to step outside of your assumptions and just stick with the premises and nothing else. 1 God exists2 God knows EVRYTHING, specifically including the future and every choice that every one of us will ever make. The question is that given these two premises, do we have free will. Does any choice that we make (or have the illusion of making) actually affect the outcome in any way. If God knows I am going to jump into CaveDiver's lake tomorrow, Is there any way that I can choose to NOT jump into it? Those are the only considerations.You cannot also assume that we are able to think since that is part of the answer we are trying to determine. Just answer the question already. It isn't like the answer even matters. It's just an exercise of logic. Just follow the logic through Just remember that if you answer that I can choose not to jump in that lake and instead spend all day in front of my computer then God's foreknowledge was wrong. That can only mean that the premise was wrong. Whatever the outcome, it doesn't matter to me in the least. Just honestly address the question. There is nothing illogical about it. It's really quite simple.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Is omniscience limitless?
Since I would say yes, it is obvious that we aren't operating under the same definitions are we?
I would say no. I guess not.
Your disagreement with me and crevo appears to be an arbitrary one of definition. If we use yours then omniscience is limited (not limitless) and the whole problem evaporates like morning mist. Yeah, I was saying earlier we could have a thread on just what omniscience includes, but I think we've pretty much worked it out here, it comes down to an opinion.
If, however, you look at it by the agreed upon premise of this thread (ie. omniscience IS limitless) then what do you see? No free will. That we don't really have free will and it seems like we do, the OP is correct in that it could be called an illusion. That or god isn't omniscient, because it sure does seem like I have free will. My original post in this thread was without reading the OP and really only disagree with the interpretation of the definition of omniscience.
So how does prophecy work then? Omnipotence.
Anyway, I can happily accept and even agree with what you are saying but your argument is kinda meaningless when the premise of the question (for this thread only) is that God DOES know the future Yeah, I realized that affter I read the OP (after I had already began discussing).
Particularly now that I know we have no real disagreement to argue about anyway. Other than what omniscince includes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
How does one apply concepts of fairness and justice to God who would is simply exercising his right to deal with products he manufactures. Is is fair to squash a complex play-dough models when one tires of them? Hell being the squashing process
I'm afraid I have to side with Iano on this issue. (wow that's a first) If those thoughts are pre-configured to occur then where do objectivity judgement that something is fair or not come from?We are all just microbes in God's petri dish. If he wants to introduce penicilin then that's his business. Unfortunately the words to the Black Sabbath song Who are you come to mind.
Ozzy writes: Yes I know the secretThat's within your mind You think all the people Who worship you are blind You're just like Big Brother Giving us your trust And when you have played enough You'll just cast our souls Into the dust Into the dust You thought that it would be easyfrom the very start Now I've found you out I don't think you're so smart I only have one more question Before my time is through Please I beg you tell me In the name of hell Who are you? Who are you? In the grand scheme of things (which as previously stated i accept for this thread) God's motivations are pretty much meaningless to us in any real way. Does the bacteria question the motivations of the scientist who applies the anti-bacterial agent to his petri dish? This was never my tack in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
Exactly. All this talk of God's omniscience removing free-will is daft. General Relativity does a much better job...
Cavediver, We aren't so much arguing that God's omniscience actually removes free will as much as that in a universe where it is possible for God to have omniscience (specifically including future knowledge), we simply don't have any to start with. The argument of logic is simply this. If God knows all then it must be possible to know all. Therefore the future is pre-determined. God himself really has nothing to do with it when you get right down to basics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1311 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
iano writes:
It is very much part of the same point, it is very much what follows from examination, whether you choose to address it or not.
Another discussion for another day. What we are dealing with is whether "God being all knowing renders our free will an illusion". The answer cannot be Yes. iano writes:
Iano.. are you applying the 'no free will scenario twice? I have no control as a result of an all knowing god, I do not then try to take control away? I think you are getting confused. This is not semantics. "I have no control..." is a sub-conclusion. Accepting this sub-conclusion you cannot then apply something you haven't got as something which is being overridden by Gods choice. You are making the mistake of 'ascribing' the opinion that God is all knowing to me. rather than realising I am simply pointing out the illogic with an all knowing god and free will. I'm sorry.. I don't know what it is I'm missing,but I do not see how the answer cannot be yes. I simply don't see what point you are getting at? iano writes:
So: no free will means we have no value... How does this imply that a.k. god = free will?
Another sub-conclusion is that you are a machine. Use the words which your conclusion demands of you. Is it fair to send a machine to the scrap yard when one has no more use for it. You ascribe yourself a value when the sub-conclusion demands you have none in particular. Or at least none other than what the machine maker ascribes it iano writes:
So: no free will means our thoughts are not really our own.. so what? how does this demonstrate that a.k. god = free will?
Another sub-conclusion is that we have no point of view. Our view is determined. We will say 'not fair' because that is determined - not because it is actually unfair. We might as easily say it is fair - were we so determined. Even our words are not our own. So why ascribe worth to what they say (sorry for my overuse of the word ascribe)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024