The Problem of Free Will, A Theological Problem. Options

[*kryogenix*]

And people will continue to ignore it if you don't summarize it.

I don't think a short summary will do this topic justice, but I'll give it a shot.

God exists outside of time. Knowledge of an outcome has no effect on the outcome. Say you could travel in time and find out the outcome of a sporting event, and return to the present. Would this change the outcome?

Oh yea, I saw this on Wiki, thought it interesting, and was wondering if someone, preferably a Christian will answer it.
"Assuming that an individual had no choice in who, when and where to come into being: How are the choices of existence determined by what he is?" [wikipedia]

I don't know if I'm the person to ask, since Catholics don't believe in predestination in the sense that no one is predestined for hell.

[sillakilla220]

cuz with a subject like this there arent facts. its purely opinion. so if you pull up an article written by some dude, it doesn't prove anything really its just wat that one guy thought about it. its completely subjective

[*chaneun*]

cuz with a subject like this there arent facts. its purely opinion. so if you pull up an article written by some dude, it doesn't prove anything really its just wat that one guy thought about it. its completely subjective

Well they have the choice whether they want to debate about this subject or not.

[Spirited Away]

cuz with a subject like this there arent facts. its purely opinion. so if you pull up an article written by some dude, it doesn't prove anything really its just wat that one guy thought about it. its completely subjective

Opinions can be based on facts. If people have sources that back up their claims, why shouldn't they post the source? It does prove something when the source is relevant to the argument.

[Yemmerz]

I think someone was using the paper plane example.

So it's supposed to work out like this. You the paper plane, choose where to go. Then God is the reality of it all, and knows that you're going to end up on the ground.

The whole idea of free will is based upon the idea that you are keeping God's teachings in your soul as you make your decisions in life.

[NoSex]

I still don't get the reasoning behind the argument. Let's say you wanted to go outside and stand on your head in the rain while singing "Afternoon Delight". This is obviously something that I doubt anyone has done, but if you wanted to do it, you could. You're saying that, "analytically", if God knows you're going to go do this foolish thing, you didn't make the choice?

That makes such vague and completely stupid sense.

Have you read my full argument at the top of page 3?
If not, I highly suggest you do so.

Because, the issue we are dealing with is incompatible properties, it is neither vague nor "completely stupid." The analytical argument I have presented shows why the two situations negate each other and are an inherent contradiction. The argument tells us that if properties are incompatible, not both can be true. It woulld be like saying P ∧ ¬P (You are both dead and not dead!).

[*CrackedRearView*]

^

I still think the logic is a bit restrictive and skewed. Your argument states that a man will choose X, and God knows that. It then moves to say that because God knows the man will choose X, he can't choose Y because that will defy God's omniscience, making him imperfect. And because man needs two choices or more in order to have free will, God's omniscience cancels this.

What I don't understand is where you assume that God's omniscience prevents a man from choosing Y over X. I don't understand where your argument proves that a person didn't have the choice to pick between X and Y. Where do you reasonably show that God's omniscience prevents our ability to choose? Where do you reasonably prove that we start with a blank slate and God simply knows the path we'll take; the choice we'll make out of several thousand choices over our lifespans?

Call me ignorant and thickheaded, but I don't get the logic.

[NoSex]

^

I still think the logic is a bit restrictive and skewed. Your argument states that a man will choose X, and God knows that. It then moves to say that because God knows the man will choose X, he can't choose Y because that will defy God's omniscience, making him imperfect. And because man needs two choices or more in order to have free will, God's omniscience cancels this.

What I don't understand is where you assume that God's omniscience prevents a man from choosing Y over X. I don't understand where your argument proves that a person didn't have the choice to pick between X and Y. Where do you reasonably show that God's omniscience prevents our ability to choose? Where do you reasonably prove that we start with a blank slate and God simply knows the path we'll take; the choice we'll make out of several thousand choices over our lifespans?

Call me ignorant and thickheaded, but I don't get the logic.

All my argument does is make clear the contradiction. If only one option is available, there is no choice in the matter, and thus no free will. All my argument does is to show that there is only one option, and no chance to do otherwise.

God's omniscience "prevents" man from choosing Y because God knows that the man will "choose" X. The man could not choose Y, because Y is an impossibility given that God is omniscient. How could you choose against the perfect and ultimate foreknowledge of God? So, Y isn't a real option because it is an impossibility. Given that there are no other options left but X, how can man have a choice? How can man have free will if he doesn't have the power to choose? How can he have free will without at least two options?

The basic contradiction is this:
Free Will requires options and a choice between options.
God's omniscience does not allow the possibility of multiple of options, thus not allowing the possibility of choice. Essentially, how can you freely choose to do anything if it is already true that you must do X?

[sillakilla220]

god knowin our path doesnt prove our lives are determined it just proves god is all-knowing. if god is as great as he is claimed to be it would only make sense that he knows how our lives will play out. it doesnt mean its already pre-determined, it just means that b/c god knows everything, that includes wat we do before we do it.

[NoSex]

god knowin our path doesnt prove our lives are determined it just proves god is all-knowing. if god is as great as he is claimed to be it would only make sense that he knows how our lives will play out. it doesnt mean its already pre-determined, it just means that b/c god knows everything, that includes wat we do before we do it.

The problem is that free will and the idea of a perfect omniscient God contradict each other.
We can't make these choices because we have no options in the matter because of God's ultimate foreknowledge. To make a choice, we need options. How can we have options when it would be impossible to do anything other than what God understands and knows to be true?

[sillakilla220]

u still have options.

[*CrackedRearView*]

God's omniscience "prevents" man from choosing Y because God knows that the man will "choose" X. The man could not choose Y, because Y is an impossibility given that God is omniscient. How could you choose against the perfect and ultimate foreknowledge of God? So, Y isn't a real option because it is an impossibility. Given that there are no other options left but X, how can man have a choice? How can man have free will if he doesn't have the power to choose? How can he have free will without at least two options?

Say that there are 25 other options beyond X, from A to Z. Person A is going to weigh all these options and choose X, right? God knows that person A will do this, but leaves the person unbridled to make the decision. Person B, however, prefers to make choice Y, person C, choice D, person D, choice W, and so on. I still don't comprehend why God's knowledge of what we will choose precludes the fact that we're making the choice. You say that to choose Y over X would be to choose over God's perfect knowledge. To the contrary, I present the question:

Where does your logic show that we aren't choosing against A, B, C, etc?

[NoSex]

u still have options.

Argumentum ad nauseam.

Say that there are 25 other options beyond X, from A to Z. Person A is going to weigh all these options and choose X, right?

Wrong. The person doesn't have the power to choose because he has no option but to follow X.
My argument proves that we have no options. Unless you can prove somehow that we can indeed choose against the knowledge of God, there is only one path anyone can follow, and that is the path of God's ultimate foreknowledge. Now, knowing that God's foreknowledge exists temporally prior to the activity of men, my argument is analytically true.

It doesn't matter how many "options" you consider, a million or two, the result is all the same. God knows the activity of men, and men do not have the choice to do anything other than what God knows. I don't think you understand my argument. And, as far as I can tell, you don't have an argument, you're just fighting an ad nauseam. You keep saying man has free will, but you're not telling me why. I'm saying men do not have free will, and I'm telling you exactly why.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe than man needs at least two options, whatever those options may be, to have a choice, and thus have free will?

[*mipadi*]

It's an interesting coincidence that I am in the middle of a book that tangentially deals with this issue. I'm reading Neal Stephenson's Quicksilver. There happens to be a discussion between the main character, Daniel Waterhouse, and Dr. Gottfried Liebniz, the German mathematician/logician, on this issue. There are a couple interesting passages from the book:

"You could as well have asked: are we thinking? Or merely reflecting God's genius?"

"Suppose I had asked it, Doctor—what would your answer be?"

"My answer, sir, is both."

"Both? But that's impossible. It has to be one or the other."

"I do not agree with you, Mr. Waterhouse."

"If we are mere mechanisms, obeying rules laid down by God, then all of our actions are predestined, and we are not really thinking."

– Neal Stephenson, Quicksilver (278-9)

Waterhouse and Liebniz meet later, and Liebniz describes his belief that a living thing, such as a human, is imbued, by his Creator, with cogitatio, which is a sort of "spirit" that represents information and thought. (My description is crude; it's best to read the book, if possible, to get the full idea—see pp. 297-301.) The discussion continues:

"What is your hypothesis, Doctor?"

"Like two arms of a snowflake, Mind and Matter grew out of a common center—and even though they grew independently and without communicating—each developing according to its own internal rules—nevertheless they grew in perfect harmony, and share the same shape and structure."

"It is rather Metaphysickal," was all Daniel could come back with. "What's the common center? God?"

"God arranged things from the beginning so that Mind could understand Nature. But He did not do this by continual meddling in the development of Mind, and the unfolding of the Universe…rather He fashioned the nature of both Mind and Nature to be harmonious from the beginning."

"So, I have complete freedom of action…but God knows in advance what I will do, because it is my nature to act in harmony with the world, and God partakes of that harmony."

"Yes."

– Neal Stephenson, Quicksilver (299-300)

[*CrackedRearView*]

My argument proves that we have no options. Unless you can prove somehow that we can indeed choose against the knowledge of God, there is only one path anyone can follow, and that is the path of God's ultimate foreknowledge. Now, knowing that God's foreknowledge exists temporally prior to the activity of men, my argument is analytically true.

Still, I feel that you're twisting this for interpretive purposes. I still don't see how foreknowledge precludes free will, and why you think that we need to be able to "choose against the knowledge of God." You say this:

there is only one path anyone can follow, and that is the path of God's ultimate foreknowledge.

Yet, how can you prove that this isn't simply half true? How have you shown that there's only one ultimate result with several roads to take?

EDIT// Again, God's not making the choice, he simply knows which you'll choose. By saying that his knowledge takes away choice and freedom assumes we're predestined to everything, right?

[NoSex]

Still, I feel that you're twisting this for interpretive purposes.

How so?

I still don't see how foreknowledge precludes free will, and why you think that we need to be able to "choose against the knowledge of God."

Because if we can not choose against the knowledge of God we do not have any options. If we do not have any options, we do not have a choice. If we do not have a choice, we do not have free will.

Yet, how can you prove that this isn't simply half true? How have you shown that there's only one ultimate result with several roads to take?

Because god is omniscient, not just really bright. He knows every moment, every action, every thought. Every single piece of information and data is known my God for he is all-knowing. He knows the "ultimate" result as well as the "roads" that will be taken. If this is not true, we should not call him omniscient.

Note also that God's omniscience is one of the leading premises. I'm disproving an omnisicent God existing during the same time as a free willed humanity. Not anything else.

EDIT// Again, God's not making the choice, he simply knows which you'll choose. By saying that his knowledge takes away choice and freedom assumes we're predestined to everything, right?

In a sort of way. But, not precisely. All my argument is in place to do is reveal a contradiction in terms. That is it. I do not attempt to hypothesis a mover or a predestination. I only intend to disprove man as his own free mover.

You ignored my question from before:

Let me ask you this: Do you believe than man needs at least two options, whatever those options may be, to have a choice, and thus have free will?

[*CrackedRearView*]

Let me ask you this: Do you believe than man needs at least two options, whatever those options may be, to have a choice, and thus have free will?

Yes, but I still don't see how God's foreknowledge precludes the fact that we have more than two choices.

[NoSex]

Yes, but I still don't see how God's foreknowledge precludes the fact that we have more than two choices.

Alright.
God has perfect foreknowledge, which exists before man even exists. Before the moment of any choice is ever made, God knows what will happen. God is perfect and all-knowing. If what he understands to be true does not happen, he would no longer be God. For his perfect foreknowledge to be denied would be impossible. God knows all the activities of man. Anything other than what God knows fails to be an actual option because it is an impossibility. It is an impossibility because it would make God wrong. So, men must "conform" to God's perfect foreknowledge and omnisicence. We have nothing but one single option, and that is what God knows.

Without any other option but that, we have no choice, and no free will.

If you still believe I am mistaken, answer me this:
If we truly do have more than one option and a choice in the matter, despire God's omniscience, do we have the ability to choose any path? If so, how are all these pathes possibilities and options, if they would make God wrong?

[*I Shot JFK*]

But knowledge isn't something you can choose to turn on and off. If you know something, you know something. I know the quadratic formula; I can not use it for a really long time and forget it, but that's not my choice of when to forget it, and I'd still know it if someone jogged my memory.

well that's just silly.

of course knowledge is something god can turn offf. he's omnipotent.

[*disco infiltrator*]

It doesn't matter; no matter how much power you have over everything, you can't make yourself un-know something. You'll know it right after you do anyway if you're also omniscient.

[NoSex]

It doesn't matter; no matter how much power you have over everything, you can't make yourself un-know something. You'll know it right after you do anyway if you're also omniscient.

Well, if you were truly omnipotent you would have to have the power to make yourself "un-know something". But, then the issue is, isn't God also known as omniscient? So, if he is all-powerful and all-knowing, does he have the power to make himself no longer omnisicent by "un-knowing" any kind of information? If so, would he no fail to be God as he would fail to be omniscient? And, if you say no, does he not fail his omnipotence?

It's quite closely related to the question, "Could God create a boulder so heavy that he himself could not lift it?"

Although, that's not directly related to this topic, despite that they both demonstrate uses of incompatible properties argument and the Law of Non-Contradiction.

[*I Shot JFK*]

It doesn't matter; no matter how much power you have over everything, you can't make yourself un-know something. You'll know it right after you do anyway if you're also omniscient.

now, i know your smart, but you dont seem to get this. do you actually understand the concept of being OMNIPOTENT? as in CAN DO ANYTHING?

Well, if you were truly omnipotent you would have to have the power to make yourself "un-know something". But, then the issue is, isn't God also known as omniscient? So, if he is all-powerful and all-knowing, does he have the power to make himself no longer omnisicent by "un-knowing" any kind of information? If so, would he no fail to be God as he would fail to be omniscient? And, if you say no, does he not fail his omnipotence?

It's quite closely related to the question, "Could God create a boulder so heavy that he himself could not lift it?"

Although, that's not directly related to this topic, despite that they both demonstrate uses of incompatible properties argument and the Law of Non-Contradiction.

that was the problem i was trying to adress when i spoek about turning off his omniscience. i agree that the two ideas contradict one another. for me, that makes the christian concept of god unsustainable

[*disco infiltrator*]

Well yea, that was my point...you can't make yourself not know something then know it anyway....yea.

[NoSex]

Say you could travel in time and find out the outcome of a sporting event, and return to the present. Would this change the outcome?

Ultimate foreknowledge is not equal to simple foreknowledge. It's a false analogy. Also, you seem to miss the point.

Change the outcome? I'm not saying God is changing any outcomes. I'm saying that God's omniscience and perfect foreknowledge prohibit the existence of a free willed man. These concepts and ideas conflict and deny the law of contradiction.

How can we have a free choice in a matter in which we have no options?
How could we have options given that we can only act in accordance to God's foreknowledge?

[*disco infiltrator*]

Like, knowing that a certain team won wouldn't change the outcome, but it obviously couldn't be the other team winning since you already know the first team's going to win. It can't be any other way.