CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
God's omniscience and our free will...
I have heard Christians say God is omniscient (that he knows everything) and that he has given us the gift of free will. It seems to me that these two ideas are contradictory, because if he knows everything he knows what we will do, and we therefore do not have free will - our future is set. Have I misunderstood something?
On a similar note, does God also lack free will, or does his not being affected by time allow free will?
In fact, would God ever have free will? If he is all good, does that mean there is only one possible set of choices he could make, those which were the morally right choices? If God doesn't have free will, then he isn't really all powerful. This is one reason why the idea of an all powerful, all knowing, all good being doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what Christians believe about God, if that is the case, please enlighten me.
Good is determined by God. What that means is, if God does it, it is good.
The only free will is God. If you are going to say that God's will isn't free because only God's will can be done which makes God limited to God's will....
...well, I think that makes even less sense.
Yet this is what I believe, that God alone is good, and all things were created by the will of God.
This seems very arbitrary; if God decides to torture an innocent child without any consequences other than the child's suffering, is this automatically good? He sounds like the kid who owns the ball on the playground who gets to make up all the rules because of that, even if they are unfair rules.
What if? Omnipotent means that God did it. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. It is better to accept The Truth than to show preference to unrealities or worse yet, live in utter denial of The Truth.
See, when you don't accept God, you are really the one who is embracing arbitrariness. Your god is personal whim rather than The Truth. For this reason, those who would rather bow down to fetishes will be cursed with strong delusion.
It is better to make peace with reality than to outright deny it or pretend it is something else.
Indeed there are many challenges to the omisisence argument , most lead down some incredibly complex philosophical pathways , the theist normally attempts to redefine the definition of omisisence or the “ nature “ of god to explain away the objections ,
Incidentally what you say about omisisence is perfectly rational and I agree .
Another attack on the omisisence claim is , if one eternal God can exist, why not another in an entirely different dimension and unbeknownst to the first God?
This is a reasonable position to put forward if one believes in a god , if one can allow for one god to exist why not two or several ?
What is important is that God could not know that he did not know this by the very nature of not knowing it!
This leaves a god in a position that cannot be defended . God is in a situation whereby he cannot know that he knows everything. He might think he knows everything. Epistemologically speaking, though, he cannot know i
Yes, I've always thought that God couldn't know if there was something else he didn't know about as you said.
I think maybe it is in human nature to assign properties like being all powerful, all knowing, or all good, to imagine something that is perfect, and to worship that, even if it doesn't make sense.
Yes , making sense never comes into it for most believers , they can always claim only a fool claims to know the nature of god or some other equally vague defence
Your twisted reasoning starts with the premise that God is not good and concludes with the same premise. You are trying to prove that God is not good, therefore He does not have the right to leave you dying forever in the fire of Hell. It's a fool's argument.
You are basically trying to say that if God must be able to be a round square. Your are presenting nonsense and claiming your ability to portray nonsensical ideas proves God is not there.
God was God before anything was created; He was there. It is not possible for something to be there which God does not know about. It is possible for things which you do not know of to be there because you are not God.
God created you because He wants to give you life; eternal life. You are basically saying you prefer to be in the fire of Hell forever; you are too proud of yourself to bow down to God so you would rather fry in Hell and if you keep on asking for it you are going to get it. If you think I'm calling you a fool, it's only because you are being a fool and trying to hide your foolishness with silly ideas.
Okay, try starting with the premise that God is good, and uphold that premise in your reasoning.
You are trying to prove that if God is real, He cannot be good. If He is not good, then He is not God, is He? He is no better than you if He is not good. If He is not good, He does not have the right to leave you frying like an eternal sausage in Hell, does He?
Comeon..........are you serious? How does God know He was God before anything was created? How do you know you were you before you typed such a silly question? You are a very intelligent young man and you are letting atheistic/agnostic philosophers teach you how to act like a fool.
Omniscient means all-knowing. God created all things, it is not possible for there to be anything God does not know about. What do mean, "how does this follow from the last point"?
God asserts Himself, it's you who is trying to make an argument against Him. Of course it is assertions when you speak the truth. The truth is assertive and no argument can change it. You can ignore it until you find Hell is tormenting if you want to.....and even then, if you end up there, you can still insist that it's not real or permanent but you will never be able to convince yourself because the truth won't change.
"Okay, try starting with the premise that God is good, and uphold that premise in your reasoning."
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
"You are trying to prove that if God is real, He cannot be good."
Where (in this debate) am I trying to prove this? At one point I consider that if he is (necessarily) all good he can't have free will, which is not the same as saying he isn't good.
"Omniscient means all-knowing. God created all things, it is not possible for there to be anything God does not know about. What do mean, "how does this follow from the last point"?"
How does God know he is omniscient and how do you?
You ask: "God created all things, it is not possible for there to be anything God does not know about. What do mean, "how does this follow from the last point"?"
How does God know he created all things, and even if he did, it is possible he doesn't know about something - maybe he created something without knowing, it seems far fetched, but how could he know he hasn't missed anything?
I guess you have a mental block so you cannot think it is possible that God is good. There is no point in trying to reason with a brick wall. Be that way if you want to, you are free.
You have made my point: You refuse to consider the premise of the goodness of God, and can only create nonsense arguments against an evil thing which you insist cannot be God because it's evil. You've created a mental block against God and it's foolish for me to try to reason with a brick wall.
Go on calling for your own destruction, insisting ignorant questions justify you..... and see if you keep yourself out of Hell if you want to.
What you are saying is nonsense, and you are willfully upholding a mental block wall against God. Therefore, when I say God is good your mental block prevents you makes you mentally disabled so you are incapacitated and cannot consider the possibility that God is good.
You are trying to prove that God is evil, or non-existent. You are talking about nothing and trying to prove that the nothing you are talking about is God. You are making a fool of yourself, joining hands with atheist fools and you all sound like a bunch of silly parrots saying the same stupid things over and over and over again, incapable of communication above the level of an animal.
Explain this. And God said, Let US make man in OUR image.... Why is he talking in the plural ? Secondly, when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden and ate the forbidden fruit. Your supposed God drove them the garden and brought pain and suffering to them and every generation thereafter. So your God's idea of fairness is Your grand father sinned so everyone in your family must pay for the same sin forever. With that in mind, that means everyone is condemned to hell. There is no God.
Indeed there are many challenges to the omisisence argument , most lead down some incredibly complex philosophical pathways , the theist normally attempts to redefine the definition of omisisence or the “ nature “ of god to explain away the objections
Omniscience brother.
There is a big problem with the claim that God is both omniscient (i.e. knows everything) and omnipotent (i.e. can do anything). I'll try to explain it if I can.
If God is omniscient then that must mean he knows the future.
But if God knows the future then that precludes him from changing it, because otherwise his original knowledge of the future would have been wrong.
Hence, God can be either omniscient or omnipotent, but not both simultaneously.
Thanks , it’s a tricky one to spell and I never checked , it will be interesting to see if the many usual tired out defences are offered up by the theists
This insinuation is so tired and worn out. Fools keep on saying it and will not listen to reason. God is reasonable, He is being more than reasonable with you: He is merciful; not giving you what you deserve for trying to trash Him so much.
God is more than Omniscient: He is Omnipresent and Omnipotent. To imply that He cannot be real if you have free will, or to imply that He is cruel for creating you while He knows the choices you will make is unwise.
Yes God knows if you will believe on His Son and be saved, or if you will never believe and will continue in your rebellion forever to be cast away in the fire of Hell. It is still your choice if you want to believe you are justified to exist outside of Hell or if you want to believe God is not justified in giving you eternal damnation which you deserve when you will not receive His Son as your Savior. He has done all He can do for you to save you from Hell and He's doing much more for you than you as a sinner deserve: He's giving you time. How much time do you think you have?
YOUR insinuation is so tired and worn out. Fools keep saying it and will not listen to reason. (Unless it is centuries old, mythical reason).
If he IS omnipotent, I don't think he was either reasonable or "merciful" last week in Florida. If I went out and challenged "his" reason and mercy, again, in the same way, I would also be locked up (or dead).
You are tired and worn out. Tick tock, tick tock, how long before you see the evidence of Hell which you insist cannot be shown to you old fool? If you had a lick of sense, you would repent of your sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved...but you don't and you won't, correct? Yep, you won't ask God to save you, you think you are too stinking good for Hell and the smoke of your torments there will testify differently if you won't get saved. Tick tock.......
There is nothing on this Earth more despicable, and deplorable than a deluded religious turd attempting to guilt and con everyone around them into caving on arguments. The days when your blathering rhetoric are respected and even protected are OVER.
Tick tock is the time escaping your pointless life, spent without even a basis for understanding.
Do you really know how stupid it is to truly believe in old scripts and stories from 5000 years ago.
Do you honestly honestly think that for some reason the creator of the entire universe was chatting it up with a bunch of statesmen and rich child molesters and murderers 5000 years ago, but now for some reason the guy who made all the galaxies and planets is like, ‘oh, I can’t believe all those guys, I made sure they can never detect me, then I wrote a book which said they have to love me, regardless of the fact that I killed a bunch of em, and sent em to eternal hell and tell people to murder each other, but gosh darn it, they have to believe in me or I’m gonna cry and hurt them’.
It takes a sick, sad, burdened mind to believe this garbage let alone try to convince other innocent people. There is something wrong with the mind of anybody who believes this garbage.
No, you senile retard! I said he did nothing to STOP it! And he is NOT evil for NOT doing so. I figment of imagination can't be evil! But, those who COULD stop this carnage, and DON'T, are evil! Those who consider the carnage an example of "a gods omniscience" or a gods love are senile and retarded enough to believe in mythical creatures that "love us" but, don't give a Crap about who, or what slaughters those who haven't had a chance to live! It's kind of nice not to have felt THAT kind of love! I wouldn't have even had a CHANCE to be senile! ;-)
Crazy Al have you Progressives put forth one answer to school shootings ? If you have i would like to see it. Anything other than the Progressive scream for gun control !
Sorry, old sir, I'm not much interested in reading your stuff any more. I like to preach the word of God......which is against you since you are against God. You're not far from waking up in the fire of Hell old friend. You need to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved. Talk to your daughter about it; I'm sure she would be overjoyed to help you.
And I'm sorry I lost my usual control with you. "Bad hair day". I taught my daughters to think for themselves, choose for themselves. They would not even try to change me, as I wouldn't them. Two believe, two don't. We never fight or argue about it, we never try to convince one another. We just believe what we want. If the world did that, thousands (millions) would have lived full lives.
Perhaps God, being timeless, already knows the choices you made of your own free will in the future. This doesn't preclude free will because the future has already happened from God's perspective: because God may not bound by time. In other words, to a timeless being, you are seen as already having exerted your free will in the future. This means that on some level everything would happen at once, in the same way that we can move along the width dimension while still staying in the same place on the height dimension.
Alternatively, God may simply know every possible outcome and not the actual outcome. In other words, God would know everything that we could do, but not know what we would actually do. In this case God would be omniscient in that they know everything that is possible to know, but not omniscient in knowing everything.
I'd also wonder if a God would want to be omniscient, for surely (if God is anything like us) it would be a boring existence. Perhaps free-will exists in part for the purposes of the entertainment of God?
With regards to your first paragraph, It doesn't really make sense to me. I'm not sure that's how timelessness would work. If the future has already happened from God's perspective, that would mean he is somehow affected by time. This seems different from everything happening at once on some level as you later mention. And if it has already happened from his perspective, it sounds to me like we don't have free will, that our future is set in stone.
Maybe look at it this way: We live in our present, moving through time. If God were to pop down from his timelessness and give one of us insight into everything he knows for some inexplicable reason, would that person have free will? I think not, as they would now know what they will do in the future, agreed?. Well, if God doesn't give that person that information, is anything truly any different other than that that person no longer knows what they will do? (they just have the illusion of free will) They will still do the same thing.
God is timeless but we are not, and if he exists knowing what decisions we will make (even if it's all simultaneous to him or something), we in the present, affected by time, cannot change our future, we are constrained by fate, and lack free will. Perhaps we make the same decisions we would have made if we truly had free will, but we don't truly have free will.
For your second paragraph, I think this bit doesn't make sense: "omniscient in that they know everything that is possible to know, but not omniscient in knowing everything." If he knows all of the possible outcomes, but not which one will come true, he might as well not know any possible outcomes, he doesn't know what will happen, so he doesn't know everything there is to know, so he isn't omniscient.
As for the last paragraph, if God isn't affected by time he probably won't get bored.
Mack, God is also Omnipotent. Being Omnipotent He has the ability to be aware of whatever He wants to be aware of at any given moment. You are not always aware of everything you know, are you? And you don't even know everything like God does.
The truth is always simple. You are letting atheistic/agnostic futile philosophies run you into the ground and the devil will happily make you feel proud of yourself, make you feel smart while you are doing it if that's the way you want to go out.
So you think God chooses not to be aware of what will happen in the future? Interesting, but that seems awfully irresponsible to create a world full of humans that, for all he knows could all be destined for hell. I mean, why not just create good people, who won't go to hell, and will believe his existence.
Regardless, we still don't have free will if he knows the future - even if he chooses not to be aware.
There is nothing which says God is timeless. Before He created anything, time was nothing, God was there. Why would God count time in eternity past before anything was created? In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth........that was the beginning of time.
Of course the guys post makes little sense when he meanders around with a goofy idea like "God is timeless". Then you take off on the indefinable idea and expand it so your comments make even less sense.
People who try to make themselves believe that they have no free will are only trying to deny responsibility for their wrong actions, words, and thoughts. The concept is insane and unrealistic. The more you try to uphold such nonsense, the more your mental meanderings will become esoteric nonsense or bold anti-Christ evil or a combination of the two. You can't win against God, you can only seal your doom and end up in Hell by trying to stand up against God. Anybody who applauds you in what you are doing that way is not your friend; they are cheering your dying while they seek acclaim for their own dying. They won't be enjoying each other's company while they roast like undying embers in the fire of Hell and if you go with them......well, you are making your choice and trying to blame God by implying He should stop you from being against Him is really kind of immature, isn't it?
Well if God isn't timeless my original point is even stronger, the talk about a timeless God was speculation on my part as I don't even believe a God. I don't know how God could not be timeless (not affected by time) if he created time.
"People who try to make themselves believe that they have no free will are only trying to deny responsibility for their wrong actions, words, and thoughts."
I am trying to find truth, and I'm not necessarily saying there is no free will in this post, I am arguing that if God exists and is omniscient there is no free will.
You are ignoring simple truth and there is no use in me trying to speak simple common sense to a brick wall. Keep it up as long as you can, it's your choice to say God is not there.
"I'm not sure that's how timelessness would work. If the future has already happened from God's perspective, that would mean he is somehow affected by time."
From God's perspective the future would simultaneously have happened already while being yet to happen and the same applies to the past. I don't see a better way to think about timelessness, perhaps you can offer one?
"This seems different from everything happening at once on some level as you later mention."
Everything happening at once is how things happen if one is timeless. All things are simultaneously in the past, present and future.
"And if it has already happened from his perspective, it sounds to me like we don't have free will, that our future is set in stone."
If we existed outside of time then we would be yet to exert our free will while simultaneously having exerted it already. It's like if we existed out of time we would be yet to act while having acted already. In the same way that we cannot envision a tesseract: a 4d cube, it is also difficult to think about timelessness. It would be set in stone, yet we would already have exerted our free will when operating in our 3D world bound by time.
"Maybe look at it this way: We live in our present, moving through time. If God were to pop down from his timelessness and give one of us insight into everything he knows for some inexplicable reason, would that person have free will? I think not, as they would now know what they will do in the future, agreed?."
First of all, I think that if someone told you that you would do X, you would probably purposefully do Y. Information given about the future invariably changes the course of events, as is often the theme in movies and literature regarding prophecies. Secondly, just because someone knows what will happen does not preclude free will, if someone knows that you are about to eat dinner and informs you of this, you still eat the dinner of your own accord (assuming free will of course). In the same way that knowing past events does not preclude free will, coming from a dimension where where the future is equivalent to the past does not preclude free will.
"Well, if God doesn't give that person that information, is anything truly any different other than that that person no longer knows what they will do? (they just have the illusion of free will) They will still do the same thing. "
When you say that they will do the same thing, you're looking at things from a perspective constrained by time. From a timeless perspective it would be accurate to say they already did the action (and were yet to do the action, and currently performing it).
"God is timeless but we are not, and if he exists knowing what decisions we will make (even if it's all simultaneous to him or something), we in the present, affected by time, cannot change our future, we are constrained by fate, and lack free will. Perhaps we make the same decisions we would have made if we truly had free will, but we don't truly have free will."
We are in the present, enacting our free will. When we view things timelessly, we are both yet to use our free will to act and having already used our free will to act. It makes no sense to say "The past is set in stone and thus free will doesn't exist" and thus it also makes no sense to say "When we go outside of time everything has already occurred and is set in stone and thus free will doesn't exist".
"If he knows all of the possible outcomes, but not which one will come true, he might as well not know any possible outcomes"
I completely disagree, knowing everything that could happen is incredibly useful. We use far less sophisticated methods to make decisions as humans.
"he doesn't know what will happen, so he doesn't know everything there is to know, so he isn't omniscient."
I'm perfectly fine with agreeing that "true omniscience" isn't possible under my second line of reasoning. I don't like the idea of dismissing knowing everything that it's possible to know as incomparable to omniscience though. I think that knowing everything that it's possible to know is a kind of omniscience, especially if this is the only omniscience that's attainable.
"if God isn't affected by time he probably won't get bored."
Possibly, the thing is I'd expect a God to be conscious (or something similar to conscious) because consciousness seems fundamental to the universe. Who knows if consciousness is even compatible with Godhood or timelessness though.
"From God's perspective the future would simultaneously have happened already while being yet to happen and the same applies to the past. I don't see a better way to think about timelessness, perhaps you can offer one?"
I suppose you're right there.
"If we existed outside of time then we would be yet to exert our free will while simultaneously having exerted it already. It's like if we existed out of time we would be yet to act while having acted already. In the same way that we cannot envision a tesseract: a 4d cube, it is also difficult to think about timelessness. It would be set in stone, yet we would already have exerted our free will when operating in our 3D world bound by time."
I look at it this way. I think we are constrained by fate. We live in the present, we aren't timeless. If there is a timeless being, or lets say a timeless book that lists every decision I will ever make, which exists before during and after my existence, my fate is sealed. If the future has already happened and cannot be changed, then from my perspective of a being living in the present I have no free will, it is just an illusion. Maybe I make the same decisions I would have with free will, but I am bound by fate, and therefore lacking free will. I don't know if the attainability of the knowledge in the book affects this. I think for free will to exist the future has to be malleable, not set in stone. Is that wrong?
"First of all, I think that if someone told you that you would do X, you would probably purposefully do Y. "
Maybe, but if God were to tell me I would do X and I then changed my actions he would have been wrong and therefore not all knowing, and if I couldn't change my actions I wouldn't have free will.
"Secondly, just because someone knows what will happen does not preclude free will, if someone knows that you are about to eat dinner and informs you of this, you still eat the dinner of your own accord (assuming free will of course)."
But they don't really know I'll eat dinner if it is possible for me to choose not to, which it is if I have free will.
"In the same way that knowing past events does not preclude free will, coming from a dimension where where the future is equivalent to the past does not preclude free will."
I think I understand this argument, but we don't come from this dimension. If we were told of our future as if it were our history, then we would lose even our illusion of free will because we are stuck in the present.
"When you say that they will do the same thing, you're looking at things from a perspective constrained by time. From a timeless perspective it would be accurate to say they already did the action (and were yet to do the action, and currently performing it)."
But we are constrained by time, we are like characters in a book, we exist in our own present throughout the story but we lack free will. All the times in the book are happening simultaneously from the reader (or the writer? - God's) perspective, but for the character living in the present, what they will do was always fixed, their fate is sealed. Maybe from the reader's 'timeless' perspective it seems as if the characters make free decisions in the book, in the past present and future, but they could never have chosen differently, the book was always written (You have to imagine the book being eternal, never having been written over a period of time for the analogy to make more sense).
"I completely disagree, knowing everything that could happen is incredibly useful. We use far less sophisticated methods to make decisions as humans."
You're right that it can be useful.
"I'm perfectly fine with agreeing that "true omniscience" isn't possible under my second line of reasoning. I don't like the idea of dismissing knowing everything that it's possible to know as incomparable to omniscience though. I think that knowing everything that it's possible to know is a kind of omniscience, especially if this is the only omniscience that's attainable."
Maybe, but it just doesn't satisfy me to think of an omniscient being that can't predict the future. If it is impossible to know the future outcome of something, then the timelessness thing doesn't make sense. How can one exist before, during, and after a coin toss, yet not know what side lands upwards, only that it is heads or tails? If every possible outcome actually happens, then everything is kind of meaningless (which could be the case), but if only one outcome happens I don't see why a timeless being couldn't know what will happen, especially God.
"If the future has already happened and cannot be changed, then from my perspective of a being living in the present I have no free will, it is just an illusion."
It's only happened already if you go outside of time itself. I can see why beings bound by time such as us would view it as deterministic, however it'd be like looking back on the past and retroactively saying it was predetermined because we now know how it plays out.
"I think for free will to exist the future has to be malleable, not set in stone. Is that wrong?"
The future is malleable when acting within the present, but when the future has already happened it cannot be changed (or perhaps it can when acting outside of time). It's just like the past cannot be changed by a being in the present.
"if God were to tell me I would do X and I then changed my actions he would have been wrong and therefore not all knowing"
I'd have thought that a timeless God would know the effect of telling you your future, as, existing outside of time, he would already have told you before he told you. In other words, the God of my first line of reasoning would know how telling you what your potential future would be like would change the future (because it already happened). It's perfectly possible that I'm wrong because I have no idea how a timeless God's actions would affect the flow of events, or the manner in which they perceive things. What do you think about the manner in which a timeless entity might influence a time-bounded plane? Would a timeless God know the result of their actions on a time-bounded plane before or after doing them?
"if I couldn't change my actions I wouldn't have free will."
When you say change your actions, it's more like changing what you've already did, since outside of time you can be seen as already having exerted your free will and taken a particular course of action.
"they don't really know I'll eat dinner if it is possible for me to choose not to"
I meant if they read the signs that you were about to eat like cooking food and setting the table. Of course you are right they cannot know for certain, though I can't think of many times that I've seen people cook and set the dinner table without eating.
"I think I understand this argument, but we don't come from this dimension."
God presumably would.
"If we were told of our future as if it were our history, then we would lose even our illusion of free will because we are stuck in the present."
We might lose the illusion of free-will but, assuming we do have free-will, would it actually detract from our ability to freely make decisions?
"But we are constrained by time"
We are, but a timeless God isn't.
"...Maybe from the reader's 'timeless' perspective it seems as if the characters make free decisions in the book, in the past present and future, but they could never have chosen differently, the book was always written"
We know that the actions of characters within a book were determined by the author's pen strokes. We have no such knowledge of what determines our actions; since characters in a book are (presumably) not conscious beings I don't think the analogy fits. I believe that the past is more analogous; simply knowing what happened does not mean we can ascribe deterministic causation and does not preclude that the actors had free will.
"If it is impossible to know the future outcome of something, then the timelessness thing doesn't make sense."
My first and second line of reasoning are separate accounts of potential ways to reconcile free-will with omniscience and thus will conflict. When speaking of a God I can only put forth ways that they might be, since this is all a priori reasoning.
"Maybe, but it just doesn't satisfy me to think of an omniscient being that can't predict the future."
They'd know every possible outcome, which is pretty damn impressive, I'd imagine they'd know the relative probabilities of different outcomes too. I've also often thought that perhaps everything has repeated itself infinite times so that every potentiality is realized.
"How can one exist before, during, and after a coin toss, yet not know what side lands upwards, only that it is heads or tails?"
As long as free-will didn't come into play they would presumably know the result.
"If every possible outcome actually happens, then everything is kind of meaningless (which could be the case)"
I disagree, as we discussed in depth before I believe that one's conscious experience is deeply meaningful.
"if only one outcome happens I don't see why a timeless being couldn't know what will happen, especially God."
Perhaps a timeless being would see, from any point in time, a multitude of possible futures. The reason for this would be that exerting free-will can cause any number of potentialities to come into being.
"It's only happened already if you go outside of time itself. I can see why beings bound by time such as us would view it as deterministic, however it'd be like looking back on the past and retroactively saying it was predetermined because we now know how it plays out."
I understand your point here but I'm not sure it's quite satisfactory, I think that since every moment (except the very beginning, but that's weird) is in the future from some point in time, and if the future is knowable, everything is predetermined. I don't really know how else to say it.
"The future is malleable when acting within the present, but when the future has already happened it cannot be changed (or perhaps it can when acting outside of time). It's just like the past cannot be changed by a being in the present."
This doesn't really make sense to me. The future may seem malleable when acting in the present, but if from a timeless perspective it has already happened it is equivalent to the past - unchangeable.
"I'd have thought that a timeless God would know the effect of telling you your future, as, existing outside of time, he would already have told you before he told you. In other words, the God of my first line of reasoning would know how telling you what your potential future would be like would change the future (because it already happened). It's perfectly possible that I'm wrong because I have no idea how a timeless God's actions would affect the flow of events, or the manner in which they perceive things. What do you think about the manner in which a timeless entity might influence a time-bounded plane? Would a timeless God know the result of their actions on a time-bounded plane before or after doing them?"
Maybe this means that if a timeless being were to interact with us alternate timelines would be created - one were it does interact, one were it doesn't? Or maybe this means a timeless being can't interact with the world affected by time - time doesn't affect it, and it can't affect time? I don't have any idea either really.
"I meant if they read the signs that you were about to eat like cooking food and setting the table. Of course you are right they cannot know for certain, though I can't think of many times that I've seen people cook and set the dinner table without eating."
Yes, but an omniscient being would have to know things for certain, not just read the signs, and I thought an omniscient being was the analogy.
"God presumably would."
This means God might have free will, but I don't think it affects us...
"We might lose the illusion of free-will but, assuming we do have free-will, would it actually detract from our ability to freely make decisions?"
Well, if we didn't have free will in the first place we couldn't lose it, but if the prediction was correct, we would understand that we don't have free will. We'd just be stuck doing what we will, it might feel like deja-vu. This seems silly, so maybe it isn't possible for such a prediction to be made known to beings stuck in the present.
"We know that the actions of characters within a book were determined by the author's pen strokes. We have no such knowledge of what determines our actions; since characters in a book are (presumably) not conscious beings I don't think the analogy fits. I believe that the past is more analogous; simply knowing what happened does not mean we can ascribe deterministic causation and does not preclude that the actors had free will."
Maybe it's not such a good analogy, but I would view God as the author in that analogy -
Creating the universe knowing what would happen. Not sure about the consciousness thing.
"As long as free-will didn't come into play they would presumably know the result."
Say the coin had free will to decide which side landed up, would the timeless one know then?
"I disagree, as we discussed in depth before I believe that one's conscious experience is deeply meaningful."
I meant to say the decisions we make would be meaningless, because there are infinite others making the same decision or the opposite. Maybe that's not right though.
"Perhaps a timeless being would see, from any point in time, a multitude of possible futures. The reason for this would be that exerting free-will can cause any number of potentialities to come into being."
I understand your point here but I'm not sure it's quite satisfactory, I think that since every moment (except the very beginning, but that's weird) is in the future from some point in time, and if the future is knowable, everything is predetermined. I don't really know how else to say it.
This doesn't really make sense to me. The future may seem malleable when acting in the present, but if from a timeless perspective it has already happened it is equivalent to the past - unchangeable.
I agree with you completely about this. There is no evidence that anything we do changes the outcome of future events. Indeed, from the perspective of the universe, where all times exist simultaneously, the very notion of future makes no sense. It is us (i.e. humanity) which has decided to arbitrarily "cut" time into different divisions based upon our own personal experiences with it. Time itself makes no such divisions on its own. What we interpret to be the future is already somebody else's past, which makes the outcome inevitable.
Well, unless you believe in the many worlds interpretation of physics that is.
"I understand your point here but I'm not sure it's quite satisfactory, I think that since every moment (except the very beginning, but that's weird) is in the future from some point in time, and if the future is knowable, everything is predetermined. I don't really know how else to say it.
This doesn't really make sense to me. The future may seem malleable when acting in the present, but if from a timeless perspective it has already happened it is equivalent to the past - unchangeable. "
It's not predetermined, it's just already happened from the timeless perspective, just like the past has already happened from the perspective of someone in the present. Knowing the past from a time-bounded perspective is not reason to dismiss free-will, so why is knowing the past from a perspective that is not time-bounded reason to dismiss free-will?
"Yes, but an omniscient being would have to know things for certain, not just read the signs, and I thought an omniscient being was the analogy."
The point of the dinner analogy was that knowing what someone will do and informing them of their course of action doesn't cause the actor to lose free-will.
"This means God might have free will, but I don't think it affects us..."
I was saying God would presumably come from a timeless dimension here.
"Well, if we didn't have free will in the first place we couldn't lose it, but if the prediction was correct, we would understand that we don't have free will. We'd just be stuck doing what we will, it might feel like deja-vu."
People in such a situation may think that they didn't have free-will, however it'd just be that they'd already been seen exerting their free-will by a timeless being. This of course assumes the act of telling doesn't change the "future history" etc.
"This seems silly, so maybe it isn't possible for such a prediction to be made known to beings stuck in the present."
It does seem like it might create paradoxes, though at the same time we did discuss ways these might resolve (the prophecy changes history and becomes false, self-fulfilling prophecies etc.)
"Maybe it's not such a good analogy, but I would view God as the author in that analogy - Creating the universe knowing what would happen."
It makes sense that this is the case, provided everything is simultaneous (which bends my mind to think about how that might work). The reason it might not be simultaneous is because God may need to be time-bounded when acting (after all, the passing of time is the vehicle for change).
"Say the coin had free will to decide which side landed up, would the timeless one know then?"
What I said here regarded the God of my other line of reasoning that lacked true omniscience and only saw potentialities when free-will came into play. They wouldn't know, though if every possibility had a parallel universe then they might know.
"I meant to say the decisions we make would be meaningless, because there are infinite others making the same decision or the opposite. Maybe that's not right though."
The reason I'd think our decisions would be meaningful is because they'd affect our conscious experience and those within our reality. Admittedly though, if there were infinite realities then there would be an infinite amount of both positive and negative experience, regardless of our actions. In this case, I still think that the ratio of negative to positive experience would be significant. To elaborate, either infinite heavenly planes or infinite hellish planes would both have infinite amounts of pleasure and suffering, yet an infinite number of heavens are preferable to an infinite number of hells.
It's not predetermined, it's just already happened
Winston, if it has already happened then it is predetermined. Everything which has already happened is predetermined.
I literally can't believe you began your massive wall of text with a sentence that contradicts itself. It's hardly inspiring to the reader, is it? Mack is a better man than I for having the patience to deal with your pontificating nonsense.
It's only already happened from a timeless perspective. Under a timeless perspective all times are at once past present and future. When the past was the present was it predetermined and if so how do you know?
"It's not predetermined, it's just already happened from the timeless perspective, just like the past has already happened from the perspective of someone in the present. Knowing the past from a time-bounded perspective is not reason to dismiss free-will, so why is knowing the past from a perspective that is not time-bounded reason to dismiss free-will?"
You do make a good argument here, which I might need to think more about. If it was possible for a time bound being to know the future, I think this would have to go against free will. It would show that our decisions are bound by fate, and that the future is set. I think if there was a being not bound by time, it would immediately mean that free will is cancelled, at least for us time bound beings, because it would be possible for all moments on the timeline to exist 'simultaneously,' and therefore not be changeable by us time bound beings.
"The point of the dinner analogy was that knowing what someone will do and informing them of their course of action doesn't cause the actor to lose free-will."
It doesn't cause the actor to lose free will, it just proves to them that they never had it. Either the person who informs them of what will happen is wrong, so never truly knew, or they were right, and then the actor will find that they have no choice. It doesn't seem you could inform them without them being able to change their actions so maybe it isn't possible to tell somebody what they will chose.
"The reason I'd think our decisions would be meaningful is because they'd affect our conscious experience and those within our reality. Admittedly though, if there were infinite realities then there would be an infinite amount of both positive and negative experience, regardless of our actions. In this case, I still think that the ratio of negative to positive experience would be significant. To elaborate, either infinite heavenly planes or infinite hellish planes would both have infinite amounts of pleasure and suffering, yet an infinite number of heavens are preferable to an infinite number of hells."
Your future is set if you will not believe Jesus is God who died for your sins so that He who rose bodily from the dead has the power and the right to forgive you while He leaves those who reject Him dying forever in the fire of Hell. Your future will change if you believe on the One who alone can save you from Hell. There is no other way, you are choosing death over life if you insist on going with the atheists, agnostics, and all other religious people who think that the power of their minds or the good things they do is enough to keep them from dying forever in the fire of Hell.
Trying to claim that God knows if you will be stupid and refuse to believe proves you have no choice, and God is at fault if He leaves you burning in Hell, will not get you out of dying or Hell.
If you are the type of person that needs to believe in something other than what can be seen and heard and you just know in your heart that there is something more out there thatvscience has not yet discovered or is supernatural in some way, please continue to read this.
“Surely the first ass who invented religion should be the first ass who is damned by it. “- Mark Twain
There is probably only one omnisciencent entity, or at least the only one we know about, and that is the Universe itself. It knows how it started, and it keeps close ties to each one of the organic life forms it has spawned. Unfortunately, the universe is selfish, keeping its secrets from us, forcing us to figure it out for ourselves, forcing us to make our own certifications and embellishments. And we have, we used our minds to come up with lifestyles, morals, ideas, ideals, and realistic interpretations of the natural space around us, and we used our minds to come up with god. Like any parent god holds our feet to the fire as individuals, forcing us to recognize our limitations and attempts to countervene human nature. Like any parent he also knows what is best and punishes anyone who falteres from that belief, because he knows that until the age of self reasoning, no one should be left to their own devices, because a feral human is of no use other than to himself.
So religion is really a societal aid, a way to ensure society won’t have to murder every person who commits a crime, especially in a world with no communication, as it was 5000 years ago. If you can see that things are necessary for society to function in the Bronze Age, then you can easily make parallels to the actual stories that have come out of religion. Every society is a little different, and the stories still parallel those parts of the world in thier particular niches today. Societies structure was determined by these memes.
It’s easy for a religious troll/turd to spout off and say your going to hell, or mentally blackmail you into rejecting secular ideals and beliefs, but it is much harder for them to come to true understanding and truly help people because that would mean denigrating the authority figure that they rely on to feel superior.
Foreknowledge is not the same as predestination. You have free will. God simply knows the choices you will make before you make them. How does that negate free will? This whole argument is simply a lame attempt to avoid responsibility for the choices you make.
You have free will. God simply knows the choices you will make before you make them.
That contradicts itself. If I am faced with a decision between left and right and God knows I am destined to choose right I am therefore forbidden to choose left, which takes free will off the table. I can't choose left so the choice (i.e. free will) I believed I had was a demonstrable illusion.
If I am faced with a decision between left and right and God knows I am destined to choose right I am therefore forbidden to choose left, which takes free will off the table.
But God never tells anyone directly. He just simply knows it. You were never forbidden to choose left. Even if he told you, you could still choose to go left.
I can't choose left so the choice
But you could've. Here's an example. If someone knows what I will do in the future, but without telling me, I will never know for sure. But let's say the person knows that I will get into a car crash and get injured. Certain events will then lead me to the car crash. I had no idea what was going to happen in the future, but the person did. Me, having free will, chose to go through certain events, and make my own decisions that eventually lead to the car crash with me having no idea.
No you couldn't otherwise God would have been wrong. It isn't complicated you damned idiot. If God knows you are destined to choose right then you therefore never have the option to choose left.
God you people are stupid. I mean really. You understand nothing.
If God knows you are destined to choose right then you therefore never have the option to choose left.
But God knew you would choose right. Did he tell you? No, and he doesn't tell anyone else. You chose to go right. You weren't programmed like a robot to go right.
God you people are stupid.
Why did you use the word God?
You understand nothing.
But you're the one who doesn't understand that we have free will.
But God knew you would choose right. Did he tell you? No
It seems like you are having incredible difficulty following simple English. It doesn't matter if God told you or not. What matters is whether you have a choice between left and right. If God already knows the outcome, you therefore cannot have a choice between left and right, because you cannot choose whichever answer is unknown to God.
You should type less and read more. Maybe you wouldn't come across as being so stupid.
It seems like you are having incredible difficulty following simple English.
I don't, actually.
It doesn't matter if God told you or not.
In your case, if God told you, you would do it. If he didn't, you would've been left with a choice.
What matters is whether you have a choice between left and right.
You do, you can choose to go whichever direction.
If God already knows the outcome, you therefore cannot have a choice between left and right, because you cannot choose whichever answer is unknown to God.
But you're not told to go right. You made that choice, you went right. God did not do anything, he just simply knew what you were going to do before you did. Why's that so hard to understand?
You should type less and read more.
I do plenty of both.
Maybe you wouldn't come across as being so stupid.
If God already knows the outcome, you therefore cannot have a choice between left and right, because you cannot choose whichever answer is unknown to God.
I know how the Civil War ended. They still chose what they did during said war...I didn't make their choices for them simply because I now know what choices they made...
There is no contradiction. If you could travel to the future as see what someone does a year from now, would that negate their free will? It's no different. God exists outside of time. He can see everything that will happen, because for Him it has already happened. It has no effect on free will.
Jesus, why are people so goddamned stupid? I've literally just explained to you why it's a contradiction.
If you could travel to the future as see what someone does a year from now, would that negate their free will?
I'VE JUST EXPLAINED TO YOU HOW IT NEGATES THEIR FREE WILL. Free will necessitates at least two options which the participant is free to choose between, but you are saying the participant can only choose one option.
Right. You should keep repeating the canned lines and slogans that your groupthink leaders tell you to repeat. I like thinking for myself. Anything else?
LOL. If you are thinking for yourself then why do you sound just like 90% of all conservatives? You aren't a free thinker mate, you sound just like Mark Dice, Alex Jones, Ben Shapiro, Stefan Molyneux etc. Nothing you say goes beyond conservative group think.
LOL. If you are thinking for yourself then why do you sound just like 90% of all conservatives? You aren't a free thinker mate, you sound just like Mark Dice, Alex Jones, Ben Shapiro, Stefan Molyneux etc. Nothing you say goes beyond conservative group think.
Right. My disdain for George Bush, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConell, and Jeff Flake with a passion is walking the party line. You should go with that.
Right. My disdain for George Bush, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConell, and Jeff Flake with a passion
You fucking liar, bronto. You claim to dislike these people only because they are no longer relevant to the Republican Party. The reality is that you spend all of your time here smear attacking liberals.
You are a pathological liar, bronto. One quick look through your comment history demonstrates the point. You spend 100 percent of your time here attacking liberals and regurgitating Nazi propaganda from the 1940s.
Nobody is misusing the word "whataboutism" you pathetic brick-chewing idiot. I told you that none of your listed patsies are still relevant to the Republican Party. You replied with: what about them still being members?
I especially like Ben, he wins every debate against them liberals.
It's funny you say that, because he is the stupidest and most boring one. At least Mark and AJ are entertaining and Stefan sometimes has something intelligent to say.
It's funny you say that, because he is the stupidest and most boring one.
It's funny you say that because you're only stating something with nothing to actually back it up. If you think he's so stupid why don't you go debate him yourself on something?
Right. You should keep repeating the canned lines and slogans that your groupthink leaders tell you to repeat
You mean like: "Make America great again"?
Or nah?
Your bullshit is really so amusing bronto. It's like whatever the truth is, you just literally turn it upside down. Tell me again about how the Earth is the centre of the universe. I like that one.
I'll slow it down for you. You say Nazi over and over and over because you can't organize an argument and have been trained to say a list of canned words rather than create a rebuttal. Why? Because you are weak and not an independent thinker. You're a follower, and a stupid follower at that. Anything else?
How does God knowing what choice you'll make negate free will? Would you make a different choice if He didn't know? Just because he knows what choice you'll make does not change the fact that YOU made that choice.
