Omniscient "God" and Free Will

[LeftSideDown]

I got into a discussion with my girlfriend in which she took the side (very unconvincingly) that omniscience and free will can exist side by side. I say that they cannot; that if an outcome is known to occur in the future and no other action can occur at best there is the illusion of free will. Can anyone give a convincing argument for an omniscient (all-knowing (her argument stemmed that omniscience means you don't know everything and that God was somehow limited by "time" and wouldn't consider everybody's decisions)) being existing with free will?

[Broletariat]

I suppose you could argue that an omniscient being would exist on a different dimension than us, maybe looking down from the tenth dimension if you buy into that theory. To a point where we don't exactly understand "time" as that omniscient being does.

[spiltteeth]

I got into a discussion with my girlfriend in which she took the side (very unconvincingly) that omniscience and free will can exist side by side. I say that they cannot; that if an outcome is known to occur in the future and no other action can occur at best there is the illusion of free will. Can anyone give a convincing argument for an omniscient (all-knowing (her argument stemmed that omniscience means you don't know everything and that God was somehow limited by "time" and wouldn't consider everybody's decisions)) being existing with free will?

Why's your rep so low?

Anyway, I do believe God exists in time (but not space.)

There are several answers, I'll just give you my personal one.

Simply, that God knows the future but does not actually see it.

It is possible that when God created the universe he set everything into motion and knows how every particle will interact with every other particle and so knows what every person will do.

A person is free to choose to act in anyway, it hasn't happened yet, but God knows each and every one of us so well he can predict what we will actually do.

So, last night when I look my girl to get ice-cream I 'knew' she wouldn't pick chocolate.
Of course, since I can't read her mind, and know her 100% like God can, I can't be absolutely certain; but based on what I do know about her - she is allergic to chocalate - I can predict with reasonable certainty - God can predict with absolute certainty.

Free-will is only endangered if God actually see's into the future you doing something, and therefore, you cannot do different since God has already seen you do it!

But this explanation sidesteps those issues.

So my girl was free to pick chocolate ice-cream, God just knew she wouldn't.

Incidentally, calvinists don't believe in free will. Hope this helps!

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I can choose A or B. My choices will either be 50/50 or determined. Or my choices will be undetermined and distributed not 50/50 but at any possible ratio over an infinite number of cases.

Undetermined events are so contrary to our intuitive thinking that it's difficult to side with them existing. However, there isn't any logical reason to presume things need causal explanations to exist (that I've seen). We just build knowledge by analyzing causality, probability, and randomness.

I doubt your girlfriend will except the existence of undetermined events. I've never met anyone who does. But if you did, God can see the future based on knowledge of how things turn out, perhaps.

Maybe sort of a "to hell with common notions of causality and time" notion of things. God sees the future, presumed fact. Free will allows the existence of uncaused events, presumed fact. No problem.

The problem is, for most people, that you are presuming things with little evidence. Free will might have a case for being uncaused, but I am skeptical. Then again, God is supposed to be uncaused so the concept is already floating about in religious ideology.

So yeah, religion already grants that uncaused things can exist (God) so it seems reasonable to think free will might allow uncaused events to occur. Then God can just see the future because he is a magical fairy guy.

[¿Que?]

Her argument is actually consistent in that she redefines omniscient in a way that allows for "limited" abilities for God. In which case, why call him God. Sorry it's not the question you asked, but I have to agree, it's unconvincing.

[LeftSideDown]

I suppose you could argue that an omniscient being would exist on a different dimension than us, maybe looking down from the tenth dimension if you buy into that theory. To a point where we don't exactly understand "time" as that omniscient being does.

I don't think that really changes much. I, in fact, brought up that it is a mainstream belief in Christian theology that God DOES exist outside time; if he exists outside time he would not be limited by time. I used this in response to my girlfriend saying that he doesn't know the future just the present and the past; she doesn't believe he knows the future or that omniscience necessarily entails future-knowledge (as I already pointed out). Anyway, even with this stipulation (which I used to assert that God knew our actions and their outcomes before hand) the problem still remains.

[LeftSideDown]

Why's your rep so low?

Because there aren't very many Christian Communists (at least on this forum) with a big heart to give rep... they only take it away.


Anyway, I do believe God exists in time (but not space.)

There are several answers, I'll just give you my personal one.

Simply, that God knows the future but does not actually see it.

I don't see how this proves or disproves that freewill cannot coexist with omniscience. It is, in fact, irrelevant in my view that God actually witnesses the event; the mere knowledge of the action and outcome are enough to restrict mankind to a predetermined fate. If God "knows" you're going to hell because you will not believe in him, it is unnecessary for him to "see it" for your free will to only exist in your mind.


A person is free to choose to act in anyway, it hasn't happened yet, but God knows each and every one of us so well he can predict what we will actually do.

I think you're using a different definition of "omniscience" as well. "Omniscience (pronounced /ɒmˈnɪsiəns/)[1] (or omniscient point-of-view in writing) is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc."

I don't think God is "predicting" what we do because he knows our personality, rather he "knows" what we are going to do because he knows "everything infinitely".


Free-will is only endangered if God actually see's into the future you doing something, and therefore, you cannot do different since God has already seen you do it!

But this explanation sidesteps those issues.

So my girl was free to pick chocolate ice-cream, God just knew she wouldn't.

Incidentally, calvinists don't believe in free will. Hope this helps!

Again, as you yourself admit, this "sidesteps" the issue. God either "knows" that you will choose chocolate or he doesn't. I don't think there is an in-between. He either is "omniscient" or he isn't. If you make the case that he is not omniscient, that he does not know everything infinitely, then you might have a case for free will. If God's power is infinite and, correspondingly, so is his knowledge then we are just puppets dancing to a predetermined tune.

[LeftSideDown]

Her argument is actually consistent in that she redefines omniscient in a way that allows for "limited" abilities for God. In which case, why call him God. Sorry it's not the question you asked, but I have to agree, it's unconvincing.

Yeah, I kinda wish she didn't get upset at any argument no matter the substance of it. She isn't a Christian; shes kind of an agnostic-jew. So technically her God could have the attributes she applies to her God, but I was not saying that free will is incompatible with any God someone could believe in, just an omniscient one with omniscient being defined as I have listed above.

[¿Que?]

Yeah, I kinda wish she didn't get upset at any argument no matter the substance of it. She isn't a Christian; shes kind of an agnostic-jew. So technically her God could have the attributes she applies to her God, but I was not saying that free will is incompatible with any God someone could believe in, just an omniscient one with omniscient being defined as I have listed above.
Well, but I was saying that if the god is not all knowing and all powerful, then why call him god. God is supposed to be a perfect being, not an as perfect as logically possible being. The concept of god is really flawed because it's either perfect (logically impossible) or imperfect (requires redefinition of god). But if god is not perfect, where do you draw the line. Is Kim Jung Il god? Was Mao? Could I be god?

In terms of religion, Kierkegaard got it right in not messing with proofs and whatnot. For him, it was purely subjective. One person's subjective interpretation of life, in spite of anything to the contrary, including logical or empirical arguments.

If you're going to believe, you might as well do it that way, because nothing within reason is going to justify that belief. You have to look beyond reason. I have nothing against this approach per se, it's just that my subjective experience leads me to believe that god does not exist, and noone can argue against it because it's my "subjective truth" so to speak. Thing is, reason works for mine too.

[spiltteeth]

I can choose A or B. My choices will either be 50/50 or determined. Or my choices will be undetermined and distributed not 50/50 but at any possible ratio over an infinite number of cases.

Undetermined events are so contrary to our intuitive thinking that it's difficult to side with them existing. However, there isn't any logical reason to presume things need causal explanations to exist (that I've seen). We just build knowledge by analyzing causality, probability, and randomness.

I doubt your girlfriend will except the existence of undetermined events. I've never met anyone who does. But if you did, God can see the future based on knowledge of how things turn out, perhaps.

Maybe sort of a "to hell with common notions of causality and time" notion of things. God sees the future, presumed fact. Free will allows the existence of uncaused events, presumed fact. No problem.

The problem is, for most people, that you are presuming things with little evidence. Free will might have a case for being uncaused, but I am skeptical. Then again, God is supposed to be uncaused so the concept is already floating about in religious ideology.

So yeah, religion already grants that uncaused things can exist (God) so it seems reasonable to think free will might allow uncaused events to occur. Then God can just see the future because he is a magical fairy guy.

Hey, atheists believe the universe appeared uncaused out of nothing!

[spiltteeth]

LeftSideDown;1743539]
I don't see how this proves or disproves that freewill cannot coexist with omniscience. It is, in fact, irrelevant in my view that God actually witnesses the event; the mere knowledge of the action and outcome are enough to restrict mankind to a predetermined fate. If God "knows" you're going to hell because you will not believe in him, it is unnecessary for him to "see it" for your free will to only exist in your mind.

Right, it proves free will can exist with God's omniscience since He set the entire universe in motion and knows how every particle will interact every other particle.


I think you're using a different definition of "omniscience" as well. "Omniscience (pronounced /ɒmˈnɪsiəns/)[1] (or omniscient point-of-view in writing) is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc."

This definition is suitable for the argument.


I don't think God is "predicting" what we do because he knows our personality, rather he "knows" what we are going to do because he knows "everything infinitely".

The question is how he knows everything - the answe I give is NOT becuase He can see the future, neither it is a prediction since it is 100% certain; rather he knows because He is in tune with every partivle in the universe, including us.


Again, as you yourself admit, this "sidesteps" the issue. God either "knows" that you will choose chocolate or he doesn't. I don't think there is an in-between. He either is "omniscient" or he isn't. If you make the case that he is not omniscient, that he does not know everything infinitely, then you might have a case for free will. If God's power is infinite and, correspondingly, so is his knowledge then we are just puppets dancing to a predetermined tune.

The argument side steps free will because the subject of free will never comes up.
God knows definitely that you won;t choose chocolate. Since he can "predict" everything with 100% certainty it is actual knowledge and not just a guess.

I have no idea what you mean by knowing things "infinitely" or why this is a problem with the argument.

[mikelepore]

I got into a discussion with my girlfriend in which she took the side (very unconvincingly) that omniscience and free will can exist side by side. I say that they cannot; that if an outcome is known to occur in the future and no other action can occur at best there is the illusion of free will. Can anyone give a convincing argument for an omniscient (all-knowing (her argument stemmed that omniscience means you don't know everything and that God was somehow limited by "time" and wouldn't consider everybody's decisions)) being existing with free will?

The problem arises because the the whole concept of free will is poorly defined. It implies that there is less freedom if your choices are caused by the state of your brain, but more freedom if your choices are uncaused, arising from a purely random process. However, it's not estalished why being subjected to a random variable would confer more freedom than if we act out of internal causes. Freedom means the opportunity to do what we wish, not the condition of not having a reason for wishing it in the first place. To call the will "free" is like saying that I will give you some freedom by not telling you exactly what to do -- I'll only rule that you are required to let the spin of a roulette wheel tell you exactly what to do.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hey, atheists believe the universe appeared uncaused out of nothing!

You're confusing atheism with your bizarre interpretation of the big bang theory.

[tiny]

You're confusing atheism with your bizarre interpretation of the big bang theory.

Hey comrade! I'm a physics student and actually the big bang does state the universe popped into being out of nothing.

I know it sounds strange but hey who are we to tell the universe what it can and can't do?!
This universe of ours is mysteries and wonderful.

Also, what looks like magic today we'll be teaching 3rd graders tomorrow, science has a way of cracking open these mysteries.

Or maybe we'll never know!
Either way science is my spirituality .

[A.R.Amistad]

I am a compatibilist, ie, one who believes that some level of determinism and free will can exist side by side together, but I'm an atheist so I reject any sort of omnipotent force. In fact, I believe in free will because I reject the existence of any sort of omnipotent God that controls our actions and decides our essence. Although, the concept of reconciling the idea of God with Free Will is nothing new. Kierkegaard spent his whole life doing it and is still considered the father of modern Existentialism. I think, on the subject of compatibilism, you should look up Daniel Deckett's great book Freedom Evolves which is a wonderful, easy to read and scientific argument that free will and realistic determinism are not at odds with each other. There are some who say (nd I would agree) that denying the objective reality of some level of determinism is inauthenitc on the part of an agent of free will. For those who aren't restricted, I started discussion on free will and compatibilism here:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/compatibilism-consistent-marxist-t134910/index.html?p=1747161#post1747161


Either way science is my spirituality .

I seriosuly hope you are joking...

[A.R.Amistad]

The problem arises because the the whole concept of free will is poorly defined. It implies that there is less freedom if your choices are caused by the state of your brain, but more freedom if your choices are uncaused, arising from a purely random process. However, it's not estalished why being subjected to a random variable would confer more freedom than if we act out of internal causes. Freedom means the opportunity to do what we wish, not the condition of not having a reason for wishing it in the first place. To call the will "free" is like saying that I will give you some freedom by not telling you exactly what to do -- I'll only rule that you are required to let the spin of a roulette wheel tell you exactly what to do.
You are right that there is a bit of a debate on the definition of Free Will, but I like the existential definition of it to best define our terms:

From Wikipedia:

reedom is often misunderstood as a sort of liberum arbitrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_arbitrium) where almost anything is possible and where values are inconsequential to choice and action. This interpretation of the concept is often related to the insistence on the absurdity of the world and the assumption that there exist no relevant or absolutely good or bad values. However, that there are no values to be found in the world in-itself does not mean that there are no values: We are usually brought up with certain values, and even though we cannot justify them ultimately, they will be "our" values. In Kierkegaard's Judge Vilhelm's account in Either/Or (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Either/Or), making choices without allowing one's values to confer differing values to the alternatives, is, in fact, choosing not to make a choice — to flip a coin, as it were, and to leave everything to chance. This is considered to be a refusal to live in the consequence of one's freedom; an inauthentic existence. As such, existentialist freedom isn't situated in some kind of abstract space where everything is possible: since people are free, and since they already exist in the world, it is implied that their freedom is only in this world, and that it, too, is restricted by it.
What is not implied in this account of existential freedom, however, is that one's values are immutable; a consideration of one's values may cause one to reconsider and change them. A consequence of this fact is that one is not only responsible for one's actions, but also for the values one holds. This entails that a reference to common values doesn't excuse the individual's actions: Even though these are the values of the society the individual is part of, they are also his own in the sense that she/he could choose them to be different at any time. Thus, the focus on freedom in existentialism is related to the limits of the responsibility one bears as a result of one's freedom: the relationship between freedom and responsibility is one of interdependency, and a clarification of freedom also clarifies that for which one is responsible.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hey comrade! I'm a physics student and actually the big bang does state the universe popped into being out of nothing.

Actually, the Big Bang has nothing to say about the origins of the universe. It describes how the universe develops from a specific set of initial conditions, but actually has nothing to say how those initial conditions came about.


I know it sounds strange but hey who are we to tell the universe what it can and can't do?!
This universe of ours is mysteries and wonderful.

Also, what looks like magic today we'll be teaching 3rd graders tomorrow, science has a way of cracking open these mysteries.

Or maybe we'll never know!

The universe is indeed a strange, marvellous and terrifying place, but we must be careful to ensure that theories are applied correctly.


Either way science is my spirituality .

Depending on your definition of "spirituality", I'd say you've probably made a very bad choice. Science and the universe it uncovers is fascinating and intellectually satisfying, but the universe is not for our comfort or well-being and science can only tell you what is, not what things ought to be.

[LeftSideDown]

Hey comrade! I'm a physics student and actually the big bang does state the universe popped into being out of nothing.

Who says the universe need "pop into being out of nothing"? I take the view, however unscientific, that the universe has just always been.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Who says the universe need "pop into being out of nothing"? I take the view, however unscientific, that the universe has just always been.

Well, if one takes the view that time and space begins at the Big Bang, then surely strictly speaking the universe really has "just always been", since there was no "before" for the universe to exist in.

If that makes sense... ?

[LeftSideDown]

Well, if one takes the view that time and space begins at the Big Bang, then surely strictly speaking the universe really has "just always been", since there was no "before" for the universe to exist in.

If that makes sense... ?

It does, but I don't see the "big bang" as the beginning of the universe, just a stage of its cycle.

" I wanna tell you something Mark, something you do not yet know, that we K-PAXians have been around long enough to have discovered. The universe will expand, then it will collapse back on itself, then will expand again. It will repeat this process forever. What you don't you know is that when the universe expands again, everything will be as it is now. Whatever mistakes you make this time around, you will live through on your next pass. Every mistake you make, you will live through again, & again, forever. So my advice to you is to get it right this time around. Because this time is all you have. "

Its from a movie, but hey! Who says movies can't have good ideas?