Free Will

[Johnny_B]

I apologize for this being in the wrong section of the board. To the mod that was kind enough to move it: thank you.

Any attempt to understand or define the intent of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being, based on our limited understanding of the universe is arrogant in the extreme and ultimately doomed to failure. We cannot understand things for which we have no frame of reference, as a starting point.

J'Pol, I agree with you when you say that we humans, if confronted with the undeniable existence of a god, could never understand him/her/it in full, due to our very limited knowledge, especially about the universe.

However, when you say that God is an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being you also have no frames of reference to support your belief. You're merely speculating, just like I'm doing.

And where exactly is the arrogance of a theory such as this?
I never said I was right and everyone else was wrong, did I?
Was Einstein arrogant in trying to understand gravity, a supposed product of God's creation?
I simply took the attributes often applied to the concept of God (omniscient and omnipotent) and analyzed them in a logical way.
Sure it can all be wrong if some premises that we can't understand, come up (I have seen none yet, though).
But from a human point of view it's a logical theory that if an omniscient being, creator of all things, exists, then free will can't possibly exist.

It is like trying to explain the workings of the internal combustion engine to a tree frog. There are simply too many concepts and ideas that fall outwith our current knowledge and understanding.

If someone told you that they had a theory that was so complex that no one would ever understand it, wouldn't you want to hear it first even though you knew you had no chances of comprehend it?

Just because you or I can't understand certain things, doesn't mean that in the future someone can't get a grasp of it. If you were to go back in time to the year 2000 b.C. and told everyone that in the future, humans would set foot on the moon, they would have probably told you that such a feat is only in the reach of the gods.

Oh and by the way, I would consider myself a tree sap next to Isaac Newton or Werner Heisenberg, for example. Next to an omnipotent being (if its existence is undeniably proved), I would consider myself a grain of dust, if that much.

Let me cut through this.
IF you believe in an all knowing Being (God, Spirit of the Universe or Creative Intelligence, etc.)
God has infinite knowledge.
Humans have finite knowledge.
Of course God knows what you're going to do. No matter how many machinations you connive.
That's why God knows. Even though we have free will. Simple really.

You got me all wrong.
First of all, I'm agnostic and I'm not trying to come up with machinations to prove that God exists or not, or that he knows what I'm doing or not.
What I was saying was that in a logical point of view, the existence of an omniscient being isn't compatible with the existence of free will.

Read my first posts again and you will understand.

[dwightfry]

There is no such word as "omniciency" or "omnipotency" for that matter.

umm....ya, you're wrong

omnisciency

\Om*nis"cien*cy\, n. Omniscience.

http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...&q=omnisciency

omnipotency

Omnipotence \Om*nip"o*tence\, Omnipotency \Om*nip"o*ten*cy\, n. [L. omnipotentia: cf.F. omnipotence.] 1. The state of being omnipotent; almighty power; hence, one who is omnipotent; the Deity.

Will Omnipotence neglect to save The suffering virtue of the wise and brave? --Pope.

2. Unlimited power of a particular kind; as, love's omnipotence. --Denham.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=omnipotency




although, I did spell omnisciency wrong.

[thewizeard]

Maybe this should be an apart topic, when I checked this on-line dictionary, Oxford online

I received no results for the word.

Perhaps it all depends upon which dictionary that one uses.

[chalice]

Yes, omnisciency is such an ugly word though.

It must have been the omnipotency of the beer I was drinking last night.

I'll concede their existence but they are archaic forms and treacherous on the tongue. The language has been streamlined and prettified over the centuries.

[thewizeard]

Was it Guiness?

[chalice]

Originally posted by nigel123@18 May 2004 - 07:21
Was it Guiness?

No, Nige, Stella Artois.

[J'Pol]

I'm afraid I am not au fait with Einsteins great works on an attempt to understand gravity. You have me at a disadvantage there.

However the reason I describe God as being omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent is that any being who does not have these characteristics is not God. It's back to the definition thing unfortunately. These words, among others form the definition of what God is.

Your basic premise that the existence of an all knowing being precludes free will in other beings is just silly. The free will relates to the observed not the observer. You have free will to decide on any action at any time, the fact that another being already knows what you will decide to do does not change that.

[Johnny_B]

The free will relates to the observed not the observer.

You said it yourself J'Pol.
It may seem that you (the observed) can choose from a wide variety of options, but what you're really doing is following the prediction of an omniscient being (the observer) who is always 100% accurate and can never be wrong.
If you are given a choice and the omniscient being that created you, already knows the outcome of your choice, then you are confined to his prediction and nothing more.
This is why having free will in a universe where an omniscient being, sole creator of everything, exists, is nothing more than a mere illusion.

It is similar as looking at the Sun from planet Earth. It may seem that the Sun moves around our planet, but that's just an illusion due to our position and point of view.

If you had real free will, your choices could change the outcome of things and they could never be predicted by God. But an omniscient God can predict everything and that's why having real free will is impossible if an omniscient God exists.

However the reason I describe God as being omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent is that any being who does not have these characteristics is not God.

I agree. This is why if you want to keep your belief in an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God creator of all things, you will have to discard the possibility of human free will, since, in a logical point of view, both can't co-exist.

Your basic premise that the existence of an all knowing being precludes free will in other beings is just silly.

I would be glad if someone could prove that an omniscient God and free will can co-exist (who wouldn't like to be "protected" by a superior being and still have free will?). The problem is that logically one of those things has to go, and I'm afraid that merely saying that something logical is silly, doesn't actually make it illogical.

[J'Pol]

I would suggest that you actually learn what logic is, rather than just continue to use the word.

The fact that you do not understand the entire universe and it's workings does not make other people's beliefs illogical. It just means that you, like everyone else do not yet know everything.

Like I said, you are trying to explain the workings of the infinite within the framework of the finite (very much so) that simply cannot work.

I like your posting style, familiar as it is. These repetitive diatribes must take quite a while to put together. At least it is not so rude this way.

Speak to the frog, ask him about the internal combustion engine. Does he understand it yet.

[Cheese]

Speak to the frog, ask him about the internal combustion engine. Does he understand it yet.

Guess so...