Free Will v. An Omnipotent God

[praxis1966]

This little ditty stems from an ongoing debate I have with my brother (who is a subscriber to the tenants of Ruhani Satsang, so don't you Christians feel picked on).

Most of the world's religions believe in both free will and an omniscient, omnipotent god. As I see it, the two concepts are in direct conflict with one another.

On the one hand, in order to be a god by most of the popular definitions I've been exposed to, one must know all, see all, and be all powerful. This implies total control and fore-sight. Recall the age old Christian addages "thy will be done" and "God's plan." In other words, most religious texts claim, whether implied or overt, a deterministic universe in which everything is predestined. Even if one believes in the "detached clock-maker" version of god, everything operates in exactly the way god intends. Any notion of self-control on the part of human beings is illusory.

On the other hand, most of the religions I've been exposed to claim that humanity has been gifted free will, the power to choose godliness or not. However, this is in direct conflict with the idea that god is all powerful. If humans have any control over their own destinies, that control is (intentional or not) a usurpation of god's power and authority.

Therefore, only one of two things can be the case, both of which assume god exists in the first place: Human beings posses free will, and god is not all-powerful, therefore making him/her not worthy of worship or praise in the first place. Or, god is all-powerful, making him/her worthy of praise, worship, and obedience. However, if the second option is true, god already has determined the identities of the blessed and nothing can change who actually will climb the divine escalator. In that eventuality, praise, worship and obedience are pointless since there is nothing one can do to either jeopordize or secure one's place in this assumed heaven.

It is worthy of note that I am personally an agnostic, but believe in a certain amount of determinism. I believe that once someone's personal history and genetic makeup are known, any future action and reaction can be predicted within a certain realm of probability.

Discuss.

[Red Leader]

Yeah I think your right. The whole free will thing doesnt really exist when it comes to religion. They basically believe that thier lives are controlled by fate alone, however god gave humans the will to think, act, etc. But ultimatly god knows waht is and what is not going to happen, so nobody really makes choices according to religion, we all just do what god's ultimate plan decides. But we are all given the gift of free will. :huh: :huh:

[Delirium]

I too subscribe to a somewhat deterministic point of view. I reject the existance of god of course, but as praxis said given history, precendent, circumstance, conditioning, environment, etc.. somone's actions could be predicted.

The two are in direct conflict with eachother and of course i as an atheist i chose the obvious one, this is very much a doublespeak idea and i wonder how somone can accept both ideas at once?

[praxis1966]

Yeah, like I said, this stems from an ongoing debate that I have with my brother. I don't think he really gets the point, though. It's as though he's been conditioned to think a certain way and can't comprehend an alternative perspective.

[Xvall]

"Free Will" is dumb as hell.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I am not religious, but I will have a basic attempt at this; We have been granted free will, and without this there is little point to life. An all powerful god could, at least in theory, create something random. That is to say, that whilst they could intervene (miricales) they do not at every given oppurtunity, because it would defeat the purpose of free will. Think of an all powerful god, could they create a wall so high they couldn't jump over it?

God in this sense is all powerful, but largely refrains from exercise of this power in order that existence is partially seperated from that of the god.

So I guess I would add my third option to the two you have reasoned. Also, when you say that god is all powerful and worthy of praise it relies upon a few assumptions itself, all of which could equally be questioned. In order to be worthy of worship you would have to accept the existence of both good and evil, something the church has typically taken on (and often changed to its own end). Without absolute attributes of good and evil, good being attributed to god, then there is no point in worship. This line of argument can be continued, but I would be heading towards deism.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 03:10 AM
It is worthy of note that I am personally an agnostic, but believe in a certain amount of determinism. I believe that once someone's personal history and genetic makeup are known, any future action and reaction can be predicted within a certain realm of probability.
I agree! Not so much help for discussion but I find "free will" to generally be quite absurd and more of an ideological plaster for those pesky little glimpses of reality.

Most people using the term "free will" don't even seem to understand what it means.
We are limited to what information is available in our environment and by that measure, we can decide what is best for us. In this line of thinking, you would have to be omniscient to really be able to determine your path. If anything, the Abrahamic god has discouraged "free will," ever since forbidding the consumption of knowledgeable fruit :D

[praxis1966]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 05:37 AM
I am not religious, but I will have a basic attempt at this; We have been granted free will, and without this there is little point to life. An all powerful god could, at least in theory, create something random. That is to say, that whilst they could intervene (miricales) they do not at every given oppurtunity, because it would defeat the purpose of free will. Think of an all powerful god, could they create a wall so high they couldn't jump over it?

God in this sense is all powerful, but largely refrains from exercise of this power in order that existence is partially seperated from that of the god.

So I guess I would add my third option to the two you have reasoned. Also, when you say that god is all powerful and worthy of praise it relies upon a few assumptions itself, all of which could equally be questioned. In order to be worthy of worship you would have to accept the existence of both good and evil, something the church has typically taken on (and often changed to its own end). Without absolute attributes of good and evil, good being attributed to god, then there is no point in worship. This line of argument can be continued, but I would be heading towards deism.
Well, I know my original argument assumes alot of things. However, the point I was trying to make was that even if one accept those assumptions, one would be logically painted into a corner. It's a quandry I can't see a way out of.

Further, even if god refrains from using most of his/her power, omniscience mandates that while s/he may not excersice active control, simple knowledge of the outcome of every event to come implies control. Therefore, the believer is back to square one. No matter what the believer does, assuming god is all-knowing, god knows what the believer is going to do before even the believer. This also negates free will.


I agree! Not so much help for discussion but I find "free will" to generally be quite absurd and more of an ideological plaster for those pesky little glimpses of reality.


I too subscribe to a somewhat deterministic point of view. I reject the existance of god of course, but as praxis said given history, precendent, circumstance, conditioning, environment, etc.. somone's actions could be predicted.

Finally, a couple of people who do. I've been arguing against unfettered free will since what seems like the dawn of time, and people of all sorts of political and religious backgrounds seem to disagree with me. In fact, a good many of them get quite pissed at me.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 09:27 PM
Well, I know my original argument assumes alot of things. However, the point I was trying to make was that even if one accept those assumptions, one would be logically painted into a corner. It's a quandry I can't see a way out of.

I think that accepting these assumptions makes free will less, not more likely. If you remove some of them, you remove some of the problem. However I see your point, and that is why I used the high wall example. Can god create something that is above even them? (In this case "free will" as you term it) All powerful would suggest yes, but also no (yes they could create it, but they would also have to be able to overcome it). Personally I think this paradox is related to the all-powerful notion of god, and not that of free will for this purpose.


Further, even if god refrains from using most of his/her power, omniscience mandates that while s/he may not excersice active control, simple knowledge of the outcome of every event to come implies control. Therefore, the believer is back to square one. No matter what the believer does, assuming god is all-knowing, god knows what the believer is going to do before even the believer. This also negates free will.

This is an interesting line of thought, although I am not sure that I completely agree. If I was a parent, watching my child, and they were in a sitruation where they were to make a choice, I may well be capable of predicting, accurately aswell, what they would choose. This may be echoing preference for size, shape, colour etc...equally it may be something different. Does the fact that I knew what they would choose before they did negate the fact they had a choice?

There are many other problems resulting from what has to be attributed to god to allow the impossibility of choice. I suppose it depends how you view t though. If you say that god knows your choice before you, the emphasis is on determinism. However, when you more accurately view a choice as a choice, and then claim that gd always knew, the emphasis is more on a god of the gaps. In this instance god is imagined as that which cannot not know something, the existence is self-contained, and no real claim to anything. I am finding it really hard to word this, and I am quite attracted to what you propose, although I still think there s a problem when you apply this further.

[praxis1966]

Well, I guess my point was as I said in my original argument. If you follow the status quo description of the nature of god, and follow that description forward to it's logical conclusion, you come to an intersection. Down one road is the absolute negation of free will, down the other a deity no more worthy of worship than my Uncle Paul.


I think that accepting these assumptions makes free will less, not more likely. If you remove some of them, you remove some of the problem. However I see your point, and that is why I used the high wall example. Can god create something that is above even them? (In this case "free will" as you term it) All powerful would suggest yes, but also no (yes they could create it, but they would also have to be able to overcome it). Personally I think this paradox is related to the all-powerful notion of god, and not that of free will for this purpose.

Right. I think we're in agreement here for the most part. My only gripe is that with each assumption you remove, you begin to redefine god. If you do that, you've limited the power of god in such a way that I doubt would be palatable to any Christian, Muslim, or Jew. Fundamentally I was only attempting playing the game according to the rules the major religions have set down.


Does the fact that I knew what they would choose before they did negate the fact they had a choice?

Good question. I think the difference is that while you may know this outcome, you don't know every outcome. Eventually, the child will surprise you, and I can't believe the same can be said of a god. Although, this may be skirting the question a bit.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what we think. You know as well as I do that if you posed this line of thinking to any random Christian, ultimately they'd cop out and say something along the lines of, "Well, trying to understand the nature of god with a human intellect is like a squirrel with it's little squirrel brain trying to comprehend string theory. It just doesn't work that way." It's a bullshit escape hatch. It's kind of like when you criticize the Christians for not practicing what they preach, they always revert back to the age old, "We're all sinners. Nobody's perfect." It's a total bunch of crap if you ask me.

[Xvall]

Finally, a couple of people who do. I've been arguing against unfettered free will since what seems like the dawn of time, and people of all sorts of political and religious backgrounds seem to disagree with me. In fact, a good many of them get quite pissed at me.

People don't like to realize that they're just the products of their genetic code and surroundings. They like to think that they're unique and important, even though most human lives are barely distinguishable from one another.