Big Bang
- Thread starter THEU
- Start date
Bob in Houston
2,500+ Posts
I don't mind the discussion. I understand the POV.
It would be something like the discussion of whether to keep a hypothetical coach for some specific period if we knew the coach never would win a MNC or NC. You look back with hindsight and say, knowing what I know now, would I ever have started down this path (hiring or keeping the coach)? Maybe, maybe not.
There are so many people who do not profess belief in God who are present on Earth that omniscience, in the directive sense, shouldn't be possible. Further, if all our actions are directed, God gains nothing from the oversight.
It would be something like the discussion of whether to keep a hypothetical coach for some specific period if we knew the coach never would win a MNC or NC. You look back with hindsight and say, knowing what I know now, would I ever have started down this path (hiring or keeping the coach)? Maybe, maybe not.
There are so many people who do not profess belief in God who are present on Earth that omniscience, in the directive sense, shouldn't be possible. Further, if all our actions are directed, God gains nothing from the oversight.
GT, that is so simplistic as to be laughable. to assume that we can understand omniscience and free will and not allow for them to be compatible is somewhat absurd. if i watch a video of a UT football game that i have seen before, i know EXACTLY what is going to happen but the agents were nonetheless free in their choices. i think that it is not difficult for someone to imagine the same situation with God and our free will. God knowing what we will do in no way means we aren't free to do it.......
Bob in Houston
2,500+ Posts
GT, i would argue that i am just not as small minded as you. i have already given an example earlier in this thread of a 3 dimensional world individual intersecting a 2 dimensional world and creating "apparent" contradictions. i would put this in the same category. do i know how God knows the future and we maintain our free will? not exactly, but i have some ideas that i find compatible..........if you want to limit God to only human experiences, i understand what you mean. i just don't think we need to do that.
C
Coelacanth
Guest
I’m still waiting for someone to show me the mechanism by which God’s prevision disallows free will. Everyone stamps their feet and insists that this is so, but no one shows me how. I would truly love to know. A common response is that “if God knows the outcome, then you don’t really have a choice.” But knowing the outcome and preventing choice seem to me to be two different things. How do you know that God isn’t merely seeing the outcome of events, rather than determining the choice? And, having seen the outcome, he would know the narrative of time without being responsible for the choice that determined it. “God knows the outcome” implies observation of results rather than determination of choice.
The “watching a recorded movie” analogy does it’s job nicely; it proves that prevision alone does not preclude free will. If one is to defeat that analogy, they must retreat to the idea of creation rather than prevision, as mia1994 immediately attempted to do when he argued that God is not merely an observer, but also the creator, and it’s his creation that makes him responsible for choice, rather than his observation of the results. But this misunderstands the basic proposition of omnipotence by insisting that God practice a totalitarian omnipotence rather than a selective omnipotence. He can do anything, but I think we can assume that a God of infinite wisdom would possess the virtue of temperance: that is, just because he’s able to do anything doesn’t mean he engages that ability on a constant and absolute basis. Indeed, observing our Universe as it is, we can conclude without doubt that if a God exists, then He must be a God who is either not omnipotent, or who practices a selective omniscience – a God of temperance and touch. For clearly we do not see God doing everything at all times.
Nor is it true, or necessary, to conclude that an omnipotent God could not modify his creation, or insert himself into creation, after a beginning. Humanity has, as a child, developed in stages, and it seems fitting that a parent would teach certain lessons at certain stages of that development.
It appears (to me anyway) that we’ve gotten down to a fundamental problem for the skeptics: Is it God’s knowledge – his prevision – that precludes free will (Theory #1), or is it his role as creator that precludes free will? (Theory #2)
If we go with Theory #1, then the problem is in describing the mechanism that I’ve been asking for – the mechanism by which God’s knowledge precludes free will. No where else in nature can we observe the knowledge of one being, by itself, determining the choice of another. Nor can we even imagine such a scenario. His knowledge cannot be of our choice, since we have no choice at all under this theory. His knowledge must instead be of the results of some event that we, in our limited way, perceive as a choice. So, if we say that God’s knowledge precludes free will, then we are essentially arguing that the results of the action determine the action itself. Such an argument is nonsense.
If we go with Theory #2, as mia1994 has, then the problem is in trying to demonstrate that an omnipotent God is also necessarily a totalitarian God. For if God is truly omnipotent, then it would seem that time would not necessarily be “set” from the point of creation, nor would the Universe be immutable, nor would it have to be completely transparent to God’s view (if he willed portions of it, or moments of it, not to be).
The “watching a recorded movie” analogy does it’s job nicely; it proves that prevision alone does not preclude free will. If one is to defeat that analogy, they must retreat to the idea of creation rather than prevision, as mia1994 immediately attempted to do when he argued that God is not merely an observer, but also the creator, and it’s his creation that makes him responsible for choice, rather than his observation of the results. But this misunderstands the basic proposition of omnipotence by insisting that God practice a totalitarian omnipotence rather than a selective omnipotence. He can do anything, but I think we can assume that a God of infinite wisdom would possess the virtue of temperance: that is, just because he’s able to do anything doesn’t mean he engages that ability on a constant and absolute basis. Indeed, observing our Universe as it is, we can conclude without doubt that if a God exists, then He must be a God who is either not omnipotent, or who practices a selective omniscience – a God of temperance and touch. For clearly we do not see God doing everything at all times.
Nor is it true, or necessary, to conclude that an omnipotent God could not modify his creation, or insert himself into creation, after a beginning. Humanity has, as a child, developed in stages, and it seems fitting that a parent would teach certain lessons at certain stages of that development.
It appears (to me anyway) that we’ve gotten down to a fundamental problem for the skeptics: Is it God’s knowledge – his prevision – that precludes free will (Theory #1), or is it his role as creator that precludes free will? (Theory #2)
If we go with Theory #1, then the problem is in describing the mechanism that I’ve been asking for – the mechanism by which God’s knowledge precludes free will. No where else in nature can we observe the knowledge of one being, by itself, determining the choice of another. Nor can we even imagine such a scenario. His knowledge cannot be of our choice, since we have no choice at all under this theory. His knowledge must instead be of the results of some event that we, in our limited way, perceive as a choice. So, if we say that God’s knowledge precludes free will, then we are essentially arguing that the results of the action determine the action itself. Such an argument is nonsense.
If we go with Theory #2, as mia1994 has, then the problem is in trying to demonstrate that an omnipotent God is also necessarily a totalitarian God. For if God is truly omnipotent, then it would seem that time would not necessarily be “set” from the point of creation, nor would the Universe be immutable, nor would it have to be completely transparent to God’s view (if he willed portions of it, or moments of it, not to be).
The reason omniscience and free will are incompatible is because an omniscient God knows what you will do while he is creating the Universe. Once He kicks the ball into play, you have to make the choice he already knows you will make or he is not omniscient. God knew at the beginning of the Universe what you would have for dinner tomorrow if he is truly omniscient. If you really had a choice between steak and fish, He wouldn't know what choice you would make and not be omniscient.
C
Coelacanth
Guest
You haven't addressed the dilemma.
You are arguing that an omnipotent God is also a totalitarian God, but you are not demonstrating why that has to be the case.
You are arguing that an omnipotent God is also a totalitarian God, but you are not demonstrating why that has to be the case.
Coelacanth,
In a sense 'God' is irrelevant to this discussion. If a sequence of events is known, then it must come to be. If it doesn't, then it wasn't known in the first place.
I don't like your analogy of a movie, but let's use it for just a second anyway. A movie is predetermined. From start to finish it plays out as determined by it's creation. The characters in the movie may act as if they have a choice. That choice isn't real.
In a sense 'God' is irrelevant to this discussion. If a sequence of events is known, then it must come to be. If it doesn't, then it wasn't known in the first place.
I don't like your analogy of a movie, but let's use it for just a second anyway. A movie is predetermined. From start to finish it plays out as determined by it's creation. The characters in the movie may act as if they have a choice. That choice isn't real.
hornpharmd
5,000+ Posts
This thread is interesting but lost me a few into it when the topic of God came up.
To me a more interesting questions is what was before "The big bang"? And, if the universe is expanding, what is outside of the universe? And, if somebody or something created the universe, then where are they?, and is that another universe?
I think philosophy to this point has tried to answer many of these questions better than physics has. I would like scientists and physicists to get a better understanding of our current universe before looking back to the start of it in such detail. But I can understand the curiousity.
To me a more interesting questions is what was before "The big bang"? And, if the universe is expanding, what is outside of the universe? And, if somebody or something created the universe, then where are they?, and is that another universe?
I think philosophy to this point has tried to answer many of these questions better than physics has. I would like scientists and physicists to get a better understanding of our current universe before looking back to the start of it in such detail. But I can understand the curiousity.
C
Coelacanth
Guest
You know what, there is a whole play which focuses almost entirely on this point. It is called Rosencranz and Guildenstern are dead.
In the play you've got characters desperately attempting to assert their "free will" against the things which are occurring to them. The problem is their lives are scripted and they don't have the free will to choose. They are less men than puppets, because they are unable to deviate from their predetermined condition. This is the argument I am making. You can't be free to choose if you have no choice in the matter.
Omniscience and free will are fundamentally at odds.
In the play you've got characters desperately attempting to assert their "free will" against the things which are occurring to them. The problem is their lives are scripted and they don't have the free will to choose. They are less men than puppets, because they are unable to deviate from their predetermined condition. This is the argument I am making. You can't be free to choose if you have no choice in the matter.
Omniscience and free will are fundamentally at odds.
C
Coelacanth
Guest
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Controversial opinions
- Started by Driver 8
- Replies: 675
- Quackenbush's
-
The Bible was created by man
- Started by Crockett
- Replies: 90
- Quackenbush's
-
Random ignorant comments
- Started by Chop
- Replies: 3
- Quackenbush's
-
Happy Mother’s Day
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 6
- Quackenbush's
-
Reflections on Reaching Age 80
- Started by HornHuskerDad
- Replies: 14
- Quackenbush's
-
Eclipse 2024
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 36
- Quackenbush's
-
PSA
- Started by SabreHorn
- Replies: 12
- Quackenbush's
Prediction Results Threads
