R733 Posted March 24, 2013 Posted March 24, 2013 Does Omniscience Contradict Free Will? Hello, Christian doctrine holds that God is all knowing (1 John 3:20), and humans have free will (Deuteronomy 30:19 is my favorite example). however, at my favorite apologetics debate board, I have seen skeptics raise an objection to these points several times. the basic logic behind their arguments is this: A being with free will, given two options A and B, can freely choose between A and B. God is omniscient (all-knowing). God knows I will choose A. God cannot be wrong, since an omniscient being cannot have false knowledge. From 3 and 4, I will choose A and cannot choose B. From 1 and 5, omniscience and free will cannot co-exist. I have read many counter-arguments from apologetics sites, but they were either too technical (I couldn't understand them), or not satisfying. so, I was wondering what would your input be on this issue? Thank you, Justin Hi Justin, Thanks for writing. This is a great question as it shows how even those who appeal to logic can have biases that blind them. Let's examine this argument and see if it follows logically. Premises 1 and 2 in your outline above are the main premises to the argument and are not disputed. The Christian worldview argues that every human being is a free moral agent and is capable of making choices simply by exercising their will, not under compulsion or because of instinct. Also, it is a long held doctrine of Christianity that God is all-knowing. The Bible says that God knows "the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10)." For omniscience to be truly knowledgeable it must be correct knowledge, so premise number 4 is also granted. However, point number 5 is where the logic falters. Those who argue in this manner make the mistake of thinking that because God possesses knowledge about a specific matter, then he has influenced it. That does not follow at all. Just because God can foresee which choice you will make, it does not mean you couldn't still freely choose the other option. Let me give you an example. I have a five year old son. If I were to leave a chocolate chip cookie on the table about a hour before dinner time and my son was to walk by and see it, I know that he would pick up the cookie and eat it. I did not force him to make that decision. In fact, I don't even have to be in the room at all. I think I know my son well enough, though, to tell you that if I come back into the kitchen the cookie will be gone. His act was made completely free of my influence, but I knew what his actions would be. In examining the argument, the assumption is made in premise 3 that because God knows I will choose A somehow denies me the choice of B. That is the premise that Christianity rejects. Omniscience and free will are not incompatible and it is a non-sequitor to claim otherwise. Thank you Justin for this interesting question. I pray that you will continue to defend the gospel of our Lord and may He continue to bless you as you seek to grow in Him. http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi038.asp I dont know If I should cry or laugh. I just hope his son next time will ignore the cookie and proceed to the shotgun hidden behind the counter.
ThatOneFurryInEveryFandom Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 Basic psychology will tell anyone with half a brain that free will is total crap.
Nonsense667 Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 Basic psychology will tell anyone with half a brain that free will is total crap. I don't know why I'm responding to one of these topics again. Hell, I didn't even, and don't plan to read the op. But what the hell, I just felt like making a response to this. Well, less a response, more of, I don't know, just a thought. We are more than the sum of our parts.
polluxval Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell.
R733 Posted March 25, 2013 Author Posted March 25, 2013 Basic psychology will tell anyone with half a brain that free will is total crap. I don't want to go into scientific debate here, but psychology is in fact pseudo science. Psychology ignore physics, which in fact is the only science -everything derives (at least should) from physics. Physics goal is to describe all. Experiments has disproven deteministic model of reality. Subjective causality interpretation (free will of consciousness) of quantum mechanics is the only interpretation that allows to preserve causality. Non-causal interpretations would render reality of pure chaos where improbable, coherent structures would decay not evolve. Objective causality principle that mainstream science still try to apply to maintain their authority and false conviction of materialism as fundamental reality is as illogical as religious dogmas - objective causality would require deterministic universe with coherent timeline - experiments show that past can in fact be altered in future (future does not derives from -defined- past) Objective causality cannot product incoherence and so universe that contains incoherence would require subjective agent deciding about its starting conditions - hence Einstein concept of frozen universe dosen't really solve problem of incohernce and subjectivity. Now, even though I consider Kaku a scumbag (because his pro-capitalism stand and open ignorance on et issue) he is in general correct here (except claim non-causal interpretation of qm which is to be expected from conformistc scientist) ----------------------
ChancellorKremlin Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 I've often thought about this, and I'm no philosopher, physicist or even the slightest bit religious, but I don't think omniscience invalidates free-will, so on that note I think I'm with the church on that one. Of course, this is all merely a philosophical assumption - because it implies the existence of such a thing as "omniscience" or even its possibility, which I highly doubt exists in some form or other - uncertainty principle and all that.
R733 Posted March 25, 2013 Author Posted March 25, 2013 I've often thought about this, and I'm no philosopher, physicist or even the slightest bit religious, but I don't think omniscience invalidates free-will, so on that note I think I'm with the church on that one. Of course, this is all merely a philosophical assumption - because it implies the existence of such a thing as "omniscience" or even its possibility, which I highly doubt exists in some form or other - uncertainty principle and all that. I'm sorry but this indicates that you're not capable of logical consistency or don't apply that ability. You cannot state that characteristic which argument of free will demand (unpredictabilty) is a the same non-existant/false as you erase meaning of the argument you consider in a first place. It'sactually really bad. If humanity wont get their shit together and start to use logical, ciritical thinking we'll belive anything that priesthood/government/corporate science tells us and degrade ourselves below animal level where we will have to work -with our consent- as slaves just for privilege to stay alive... Wait a minute that already happened. You're free to make assumptions (science is based on assumptions) but you're not okay to claim self-contradicting assumptions and claim that they are valid as by that you manufacture chaos and confusion. There is something really bad with education on this planet. But it is certainly not a conspiracy - powerful and knowledgeable wouldn't dumb people down to make them subservient and easy to manipulate...
ChancellorKremlin Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 I don't think you've understood my point. I don't think such a thing as omniscience is possible (as you've pointed out, unpredictability) and I alluded to with Eisenberg's uncertainty principle. I was merely making the (entirely moot and for rhetorical purposes only) that if it *did* exist, I still don't think it would invalidate free will. That's not to say I believe it exists, which is an entirely different discussion.
R733 Posted March 25, 2013 Author Posted March 25, 2013 I don't think you've understood my point. I don't think such a thing as omniscience is possible (as you've pointed out, unpredictability) and I alluded to with Eisenberg's uncertainty principle. I was merely making the (entirely moot and for rhetorical purposes only) that if it *did* exist, I still don't think it would invalidate free will. That's not to say I believe it exists, which is an entirely different discussion. First about Heisenberg's uncertainy priniple - ignore if you're not intrested - quote from wiki; Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused[4][5] with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty.[6] It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems, and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.[7] It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer.[8] 1)"Quantum level" -as experiments indicate- occurs not only on subatomic/atomic scale but on all scales 2)Uncertainty of wave function does not explain wave function collapse and "dualistic" nature of matter that makes -supposedly- noncausal choice of it's state 3)Uncertainty defined as a result of entaglement of measuring system (instrument that collect data) with measured system has been experimentally disproved (delayed choice experiment) - Heisenberg's uncertainy principle (in it's common interpretation) is a horseshit. Just because the math works and gives accurate results (in certain experiments) doesn't mean that model is good. Second - this post wasn't really mocking incoherence of christian assumptions to scientific evidence (although they of course are), but rather fact that assumptions made by christianity are self-contradicting and -because of that- insulting to any intelligent being. Omniscience is NOT possible to occur within system that contains free will as free will require that one cannot predict - be omniscient. Any other system not capable to make choice at it's whim does not have free will. Unless you consider automatons as a free will systems. Is it really that complicated? If humans can't agree even with such a trivial tautology then we can assume that communication is truly pointless.
Veta Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 This should have been at off topic . What I have to say on the matter,whomever it may concern is ,there is more than one path to enlightenment, which is unique to every individual .(sounds pretty cheesy I know) no need for reasoning when it comes down to faith , if you look at any religion it began to exist when people had the need to trust at something bigger . Where I am getting at is ; as long as a religion has correct teachings, why the hatred and the misery ?
R733 Posted March 25, 2013 Author Posted March 25, 2013 This should have been at off topic . What I have to say on the matter,whomever it may concern is ,there is more than one path to enlightenment, which is unique to every individual .(sounds pretty cheesy I know) no need for reasoning when it comes down to faith , if you look at any religion it began to exist when people had the need to trust at something bigger . Where I am getting at is ; as long as a religion has correct teachings, why the hatred and the misery ? Level of incoherence in religious beliefs and "logic" is so audacious that I find it hilarious - yes, it's tragic but at the same time it's so grotesquely stupid it's hard not to laugh. As for path to enlightment... The point is that religions have been design to purposefuly loop consciousness and prevent it from growth. It's not some abrakadabra bullshit "accidentaly" created from ignorance and imagination - It's a well thought out psychological weapon. "Benevolent" belief system that leads toward greater complexity and coherence of consciousness cannot be illogical - if humans would start to apply logic incohernet religions would dissolve quickly. There is nothing more dysfunctinal than concept of god of intervention and control. It leads towards acceptance of imperfect state and prevent from searching solutions. Seen once documentary about "randomness", phenomena of lightening, creativity and god. There was a scene where mexican (or brazilian) women told how lightening hit church full of people and fried all of them. She said it was act of god. Then they've rebuild the church in exact place and "accident" repeated itself. She said that it was also act of god and must be good for fried people. I don't remember how many times these people rebuild the church, but you get the idea - "will of god" prevent from gaining any kind of experience and blocks process of learning except most basic "acknowledge and remember". no need for reasoning when it comes down to faith , if you look at any religion it began to exist when people had the need to trust at something bigger . "No need for reasoning attitude" is something that religions thought pepole. I belive that, because alternative is that people are simply too stupid - in such case we may detonate nukes right away to save ourselves some really nasty agony. Without reason you cannot process gained data in any meaningful way and beacause of that you cannot learn. Humans become too powerfull to maintain in sustainable way patterns of behaviour based on ignorance and insanity.
Myst42 Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 Hmm There's so much that could be said about this and the discussions would never end so i absolutely refuse to try to convince anyone of what im about to say, HOWEVER... i will share an opinion, you may as well like it or not, and i dont really care what you do with your life, because its YOUR OWN and youre free to do whatever the hell you want with it. Religion has been the basis of society for thousands and maybe millions of years, but no one really stops to question its real origin What do you think people from the stone age would think about you if you travel thought time and appeared in front of them with a lighter and a cellphone? The answer is "magic!!" you suddenly ascended to the level of a witch or even a god The quest of rulers throughout the ages has always been the same: more power and control, and what a better way to control people's minds than using religion? Im sure many people consider the Ancient Aliens theory a bunch of crap, but if you truly look at history and stop treating our ancestors as idiots, you would see that it actually is a lot more probably than "the world being made in literally 7 days" or even "the possibility of having Man, the universe's single greatest creation to appear in ONLY one single planet amongst billions of planets and stars." However this is the point where it gets confuse because if exogenesis is the only answer that makes sense, then yes, we were created by aliens, and our ancestors looked upon them as gods, but then again.. who the hell created THEM?? There have been some attempts to recreate history of mankind using alien based "evidence", and the results have been mindblowing, however, history is always made by the writer, so despite the common elements (Orion constellation, dragons' serpents, brothers in dispute, blood rituals and a whole bunch of things present in every single religion), the perspective on the off world visitors is divided. Some say they are "our big brothers that came to help us in the path to enlightenment , some others say they are "reptilians who feast on human blood and seek to mind control everyone". My take: there are both kinds And this is where i get into quantum physics too, because as i said earlier, SOMETHING must have created them. And despite all ive said about religion being an original mind control element and its symbolism inspired by aliens, i am NOT atheist, and im fact im a Christian. How is it possible? look at my signature... now seriously Logic evidence (i made a distinction from actual evidence which is material) points to Jesus being a hybrid, i mean since when do "stars" place themselves over houses just to watch a child's birth? If Jesus was truly a hybrid, doesnt really matter, his original message, was to purify religion of its mind-control crap, a message of loving each other and building a better world Ancient schools agree that his teachings had a lot more of Ancient Egypt's knowledge, than what people think. And in Ancient Egypt, "gods" were actually manifestations of the forces of nature and the universe, the true core of this was merging all divinity and all the material realm into one thing, one thing in bhuddism is called "brahma" and achieving "nirvana" is the only way of being connected to it, in other words to God So where does quantum mechanics enter in this? As simple as it gets: EVERYTHING is connected Everything vibrates at a subatomic level, and vibration is actually music, the sound of the Universe that links us all Recent discoveries are on the way of merging science with ancient knowledge, as atoms are part of molecules which in time are part of cells, and cells organize themselves to form us, the same way we are part of a larger groups of organization, that form interconnected tissues and ecosystems, "membranes" or "strains" in a multi-universe of infinite possibilities limited only by the power of imagination, which is itself a living organism so unbelievably large and complex we cant even begin to understand in its full dimension. And where is the error in these "omniscient god vs free will thing" Omniscience means being everywhere and seeing everywhere, and the thing we are connected to ias actually everywhere, the error is thinking of God as some white bearded old man sitting in a chair on a room full of clouds. Look at the scene, the "white bearded old man" is actually Zeus in Roman/Greek mythology. God is not in a church, or in a mountain or somewhere far away Its in you "Chop a piece of wood, and ill be there, lift a rock, and youll find me" Free will is actually the way of how you choose to live your life. Will you be a selfish bastard that only want power and control? or will you be someone who cares about others and walks a path of kindness, there are consequences for your actions, but none of them is because "someone is punishing you", is simple physics, energy returns, action/reaction However this is my opinion and im fine if you dont share it If religion by one side has been a political tool, it is also true that for some of the simplest people, religion is truly a path to enlightenment In ignorance they find bliss, and who cares what they know if the truly feel connected to God....
Grumpf Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 Let's not confound religion and spirituality elalquimista. If you're a full Catholic then you shouldn't believe in Aliens unless they have human form. You're free, however (free will ) to adopt some of their theories or spiritual guidance. And no; Religion wasn't the base of society for millions of years . If you agree that rites of burial is a form a religion then we found traces of it dating 100.000 years but I personally think an organised spirituality requires writing thus is no more than 5000 years. Although as most Catholics admit that the Bible as a book begun with Emperor Constantin around 4th Century, reality is what you now have in store was really released around 16th Century when men more or less stop removing and adding stuff to it . I didn't bothered with wiki links but we have free will to use Google people! Cheers!
LordJerle Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 If there is a god, then surely bacon and boobs are God's gift to man.
R733 Posted March 26, 2013 Author Posted March 26, 2013 There's so much that could be said about this and the discussions would never end so i absolutely refuse to try to convince anyone of what im about to say, HOWEVER... Eee, actually the "discussion" about tautology ends in the moment when both side decide to apply logic. Trust me. Logic is sacred. Period. (Jesus christ) However this is the point where it gets confuse because if exogenesis is the only answer that makes sense, then yes, we were created by aliens, and our ancestors looked upon them as gods, but then again.. who the hell created THEM?? . . So where does quantum mechanics enter in this? As simple as it gets: EVERYTHING is connected Everything vibrates at a subatomic level, and vibration is actually music, the sound of the Universe that links us all I remeber scene in movie "Prometheus" where obnoxiously retarded christian "scientist" character ( ) after seing body of alien corpse to the question "won't you take down that cross now?" answered "And who created them?". Jesus christ. The essence of religious ignorance - capacity to reject any evidence or logical argument. The cross is symbol of belief in salvation via suffering of other(s) and self-conradicting god of contol and intervention, not "the process of evolution cannot be random as this contradict persistence and progress of complex, low entropy life forms". And this is where i get into quantum physics too, because as i said earlier, SOMETHING must have created them. And despite all ive said about religion being an original mind control element and its symbolism inspired by aliens, i am NOT atheist, and im fact im a Christian. You're not a christian as your beliefs don't fit criteria (dogmas) of christianity. You have created your own belief system and from some reasons you identify with christians. Most of religious people don't really know their religions well (statistically proven), usually worse than atheist. If you do know basic dogmas of your religion it would be illogical for you to claim that you belong to that religion. Then again religious people are not logical (also statistically proven) so maybe... now I get confused. Everything is connected is misrepresentation of quatum phenomena (which does not occur only on subatomic scale by the way). It's easy to conceptualize and got this neat idea we are all one etc. but that view is no longer coherent to the evidence. There is a bit of problem with that kind of thinking. It's a propaganda thinking not scientific thnking. If you don't depend on scientific experiments and logic you cannot create confidence. You know that your beliefs are rather baseless and you cant get intimidated/ridiculed easily by scientific/religious "authortiy". "Connection" idea dosen't really solve problem of evolution/entropy and... actually dosen't really solve anything but it's a neat anit-war anti-racism idea. Won't work. It's just another false pro-human back slapping movement like "abusive behaviour is caused by low self-esteem" and that kind of stuff. It is certainly better than "my family and my country and fuck the others" attitude but humanity cannot grow on base of slogans/propaganda as those create ignorance which results we experience today. About alien theory you're (most likely) correct. The more you research ufo phenomena in multilayer context of anthropology, history, culture, religions, politics etc. the more it fits together nicely and create coherent story of an experimental slave race - humanity- that been in some time very popular object of sex tourism. If religion by one side has been a political tool, it is also true that for some of the simplest people, religion is truly a path to enlightenment In ignorance they find bliss, and who cares what they know if the truly feel connected to God.... I'm sorry but enlightenmnet is opposition of ignorance. The way I define these words at least. If ignorance is bliss, then earth must be truly a paradise, right? Nevermind me and my silly logic...
R733 Posted March 26, 2013 Author Posted March 26, 2013 This thread sure is fun HAHA Thank you. This one is my favorite: If only all religious people would apply it, we'd solve problem of dogmatic religions and overpopulation at the same time.
ChancellorKremlin Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 You just don't learn any lessons, do you R337? Discussion of philosophical and scientific principles is one thing - constantly (and needlessly, I might add) bashing religion and the folks who follow it is another. You have to ask yourself this question - if your point is so valid and beyond debate, and your logic so rational and unquestionable, why do you have to resort to ad-hominem attacks on people with different views to your own? You're committing a neat little fallacy there, you know that? You're being warned for this, and unfortunately for you, is also means you'll probably be banned, permanently this time. Wherever you end up, just remember this in the future - if you're having to denigrate other people to make your point, then you're doing it wrong. Your points should stand by themselves. Thread locked.
Recommended Posts