Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Free will, is it possible?

BiigDogg
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2009 8:14:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I had came to a conclusion of free will versus monotheistic religions such as Judeism, Christianity, and Islam, in that free will cannot exist with an omniscient creator.

I am currently taking a course in the philosophy of ethics and as expected the teacher gave an argument to the existence of both free will and an omniscient creator.

The claim was that one can be knowing, but not cause something to happen.
ex.(given by teacher) If one sees 2 cars racing down the street in an intersecting
path going at the same speed, then one knows that they're going to crash,
but one did not cause it to happen.
- Even without the use of the skeptic view, this example is flawed.
-- In this example I am a human being, the same being that i always am, so I
havent the power to create.

The definition of omniscient is to be infinitely wise...
God is.
Then created.
To create with infinite wisdom, is to know what one's creating.
To create with infinite wisdom, one must create with purpose because one is creating with past present and forknowledge.
To know ones creation, infinitely, is to what it does and will do.

So I am arguing the causality that negates free will is that of creating a being with intent for it to do something. and being omniscient the being that was created will do such thing, because one who's omniscient cannot be incorrect.

--I hope my logic followed in some wierd way. And I hope to learn if there's a better explanation to Free will along side of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent creator.
TheQuestioner
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2009 6:21:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Hello, I am a little new so, I may not be so good with the 'debating technique', if there even is one:). I believe that there is a free will, because I can choose what I wish. Right now, I can yell and scream or I can jump out my window. Now, If God did create us with this free will, I believe He did. I see no reason how we could say there is no free will. God created us and He is omniscient. God knows what will happen and allows it. Does that make sense? I hope it does.
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2009 7:15:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/12/2009 6:21:16 PM, TheQuestioner wrote:
Hello, I am a little new so, I may not be so good with the 'debating technique', if there even is one:). I believe that there is a free will, because I can choose what I wish. Right now, I can yell and scream or I can jump out my window. Now, If God did create us with this free will, I believe He did. I see no reason how we could say there is no free will. God created us and He is omniscient. God knows what will happen and allows it. Does that make sense? I hope it does.

I think the point he's trying to make is that if God, or any other omniscient being knows what will happen, then free will is negated because we are not truly choosing our own destiny, but said destiny has already been predetermined by the creator. It's an interesting topic. It all depends on how you define 'free will'.

One way to look at it would be to consider different frames of reference. Right now, I can choose to go work on a project I've been putting off for a while, or I can choose to roll a fatty and watch some South Park or I can do any other number of random things. Even if God knows beforehand what I'm going to do next, from my perspective I am free to do what I want. There is nothing physical that I can perceive that forces me to make one choice over another. This would then lead me to conclude that free will exists at least within the scope of this world and what we perceive to be reality...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2009 7:25:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"I believe that there is a free will, because I can choose what I wish. Right now, I can yell and scream or I can jump out my window."

Arguments like these are the MOST FRUSTRATING. Yes, you can jump out of your window... but would that choice be free? No. Our choices are determined by genetics, the laws of nature and outside experiences that influence your decision (these are all out of your control). It's very easy upon first glance to say that our *choices* make us free, however, upon further investigation it's simply not the case. I know that I am in the extreme minority in my way of thinking though and at this point I don't have the inclination to convert a bunch of people so believe whatever you'd like. However it seems completely out there to both believe in the monotheistic God AND free will, as the very inherent nature of both ideas seem to conflict.
President of DDO
BiigDogg
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 10:00:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/12/2009 7:15:25 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
At 11/12/2009 6:21:16 PM, TheQuestioner wrote:
Hello, I am a little new so, I may not be so good with the 'debating technique', if there even is one:). I believe that there is a free will, because I can choose what I wish. Right now, I can yell and scream or I can jump out my window. Now, If God did create us with this free will, I believe He did. I see no reason how we could say there is no free will. God created us and He is omniscient. God knows what will happen and allows it. Does that make sense? I hope it does.

You say "you can yell and scream or jump out your window," but did you do any of those things. You kept typing, not because of free will, but because i posted this topic. Which is how causality works. If an omniscient being, as people claim their God to be, created you, then you were caused to do all that you ever do.

I think the point he's trying to make is that if God, or any other omniscient being knows what will happen, then free will is negated because we are not truly choosing our own destiny, but said destiny has already been predetermined by the creator. It's an interesting topic. It all depends on how you define 'free will'.

Said destiny is not just predetermined, but also caused, purposely. To create with infinite knowledge means you know all about your creation, maybe even before you creat it.
One way to look at it would be to consider different frames of reference. Right now, I can choose to go work on a project I've been putting off for a while, or I can choose to roll a fatty and watch some South Park or I can do any other number of random things. Even if God knows beforehand what I'm going to do next, from my perspective I am free to do what I want. There is nothing physical that I can perceive that forces me to make one choice over another. This would then lead me to conclude that free will exists at least within the scope of this world and what we perceive to be reality...

Perspective isnt truth and truth is the issue. If people are to accpet that they percieve a non-truth that has been told to them to be truth. Then they are also logically required to accept that they've been lied to. Yes, even I percieve my actions as free will, but out of the finite things i could do, i will only do one. By the scope of a monotheistic religion that 'thing' I do is and already was known by the creator.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 1:51:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Where did all these n00bs come from?

Try to research topics before discussing them. Intuitition is not a great means for answering complicated questions.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2009 7:01:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 1:51:24 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Where did all these n00bs come from?

Try to research topics before discussing them. Intuitition is not a great means for answering complicated questions.

I wouldn't say that so hastily.
SaintMichael
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2009 11:39:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Que Sera Sera - whatever will be, will be. To illustrate this principle, draw an "E" on the middle of a piece of paper. Now draw an "F" above it and connect it with a dotted line. The "E" stands for event, and the "F" for foreknowledge. An event occurs and is foreknown. By erasing the "F" and dotted line, you will see that it has no effect the event. The event will occur as foreseen; whatever will be, will be be.

Here is another helpful illustration:

A man is faced with two ice cream flavors: chocolate and vanilla. God knows the man is going to pick vanilla, and sure enough, moments later, the man chooses vanilla. It is important to recognize that God's foresight was dependent on the man's choice. Had the man freely chosen chocolate ice cream, then God's foreknowledge would have been different. God's foresight was a result of the free choice, the choice was not determined by God's foresight.

William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga have done a lot of work on the logical privatization of knowledge and freewill, I suggest you try one of their works for greater explanation.
BiigDogg
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2009 8:36:47 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/14/2009 11:39:34 PM, SaintMichael wrote:
Que Sera Sera - whatever will be, will be. To illustrate this principle, draw an "E" on the middle of a piece of paper. Now draw an "F" above it and connect it with a dotted line. The "E" stands for event, and the "F" for foreknowledge. An event occurs and is foreknown. By erasing the "F" and dotted line, you will see that it has no effect the event. The event will occur as foreseen; whatever will be, will be be.

Here is another helpful illustration:

A man is faced with two ice cream flavors: chocolate and vanilla. God knows the man is going to pick vanilla, and sure enough, moments later, the man chooses vanilla. It is important to recognize that God's foresight was dependent on the man's choice. Had the man freely chosen chocolate ice cream, then God's foreknowledge would have been different. God's foresight was a result of the free choice, the choice was not determined by God's foresight.
Nice try?, but God's omniscient isn't dependent on anything, but itself. Thats why its 'infinite wisdom'. So to clarify what that means in the story is that "the man's" choice to choose vanilla was dependent on God's forsight. One reason why is because if the man had the free choice to choose chocolate after God had forseen vanilla then we have proof negative of God's existence, atleast in the for we imagine. Reason 2 is that God is not just a forseer, but the creator of all things he can forsee. To create with forknowledge, makes the knowledgable being, responsible for the creations actions because the creator with infinite power made the choice to creat something that it knows will do something.

William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga have done a lot of work on the logical privatization of knowledge and freewill, I suggest you try one of their works for greater explanation.
dogparktom
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2009 9:32:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 1:51:24 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Where did all these n00bs come from?

Try to research topics before discussing them. Intuitition is not a great means for answering complicated questions.

BRILLIANT COMMENT. RIGHT ON!
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2009 9:33:18 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Is Free will possible:

I think it's a question of perspective. From my immediate perspective, the one which I would imagine I was evolved to view the world in, yes.

Is it possible from the scientific perspective of that a mind is ultimately defined by the physical charecteristics of the brain, which are all ultimately derived from physical laws, no.

And being that I cannot quite understand the way in which my particular ideas are derived from those physical "realities", laws, and the fact that I think the brain is too complex for anyone to ever be able to really understand all of a persons ideas from those physical realities, I see little point in treating people as not having free will; As I can best understand them, and can predict their actions, from that evolved perspective that they do.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2009 9:57:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
This topics kind of funny b/c usually in science, the predictive power of a theory, it's usefulness, is what determines scientific thought on the matter.

Now on this topic, b/c we can show that brain problems cause certain kinds of thought problems, it can be reasonably claimed that thought comes from the brain, which is a physical thing.

But in predictive power I think that treating those thoughts as things derived from physical processes is rather useless, as the physical realities which give rise to those thoughts are rather impossible to make crystal clear.
Meanwhile just accepting the natural framework, including "choice", we develop to explain those thoughts allows us to predict and understand behavior pretty good, which makes sense being that we probably evolved to think in this way.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2009 10:25:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 1:51:24 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Where did all these n00bs come from?

Try to research topics before discussing them. Intuitition is not a great means for answering complicated questions.

Sounds like someones got their head pretty far up their own @ss. No ones trying to give a definitive answer because it isn't possible. Thus everything here is speculation based on general ideas. How would one go about 'researching' free will anyway? No matter where you look, any information is going to be based on somebody's intuition and their conclusions founded upon the specific logical path they decided to take.
SaintMichael
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2009 12:42:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Nice try?, but God's omniscient isn't dependent on anything, but itself. Thats why its 'infinite wisdom'. So to clarify what that means in the story is that "the man's" choice to choose vanilla was dependent on God's forsight. One reason why is because if the man had the free choice to choose chocolate after God had forseen vanilla then we have proof negative of God's existence, atleast in the for we imagine. Reason 2 is that God is not just a forseer, but the creator of all things he can forsee. To create with forknowledge, makes the knowledgable being, responsible for the creations actions because the creator with infinite power made the choice to creat something that it knows will do something.:

God's omniscience has three categories: could, will, would. Prior to creating the universe, God knew everything that could happen. Once he decided to create humans, he knew every possible free choice they would make. He knew how each free choice affected other free choices. He used this "would" knowledge to decide the combination of values that he would create the universe with. The effect was exactly what he wished for, but the human actions were themselves done volitionally.

When I say that God's knowledge is dependent, I'm speaking in terms of logical causality. Because God is eternal, there was never a point in time when he did not know what was going to occur. The question is, however, is God's knowledge a result of human choices or the cause of them?

Reason 1: God's omniscience is logically (not chronologically) dependent on the free choices that he foresaw.

Reason 2: If by knowing what a person would freely do, God merely "locked in" their choice when creating the universe then our choices are based on our free will.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2009 4:12:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
God's omniscience has three categories: could, will, would. Prior to creating the universe, God knew everything that could happen. Once he decided to create humans, he knew every possible free choice they would make. He knew how each free choice affected other free choices. He used this "would" knowledge to decide the combination of values that he would create the universe with. The effect was exactly what he wished for, but the human actions were themselves done volitionally.

When I say that God's knowledge is dependent, I'm speaking in terms of logical causality. Because God is eternal, there was never a point in time when he did not know what was going to occur. The question is, however, is God's knowledge a result of human choices or the cause of them?

Reason 1: God's omniscience is logically (not chronologically) dependent on the free choices that he foresaw.

Reason 2: If by knowing what a person would freely do, God merely "locked in" their choice when creating the universe then our choices are based on our free will.

I more or less agree with the theist that God's omniscience and free will are compatible - to say that God is omniscient is in other words to say he has perfect knowledge of the future. And yet, if we were to go to a fortune teller and ask for our future (presuming they can do what they do), I don't think we'd say they violated our free will.

I don't want to get into it, but I think the theist has this on their side. Of course, you don't need to presume religion to exclude free will anyway :).
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2009 4:31:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/15/2009 4:12:31 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
I more or less agree with the theist that God's omniscience and free will are compatible - to say that God is omniscient is in other words to say he has perfect knowledge of the future. And yet, if we were to go to a fortune teller and ask for our future (presuming they can do what they do), I don't think we'd say they violated our free will.

I agree, but having a dictator in the sky certainly limits that free will. Though I find that talking about free will with god involved is ridiculous because he doesn't exist. lol. It's like a hypothetical argument.

I don't want to get into it, but I think the theist has this on their side. Of course, you don't need to presume religion to exclude free will anyway :).

Wait, so you're an indeterminist, but against free will?

If you haven't already, you should check out the debate between me and theLwerd about determinism and free will.

http://www.debate.org...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2009 6:10:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think I'm a determinist but I believe in free will in a limited capacity (eg. the ability to veto an action or supress an urge).

I don't mind being ridiculed for this opinon which I acknowledge comes more from intuition than research.

I think even if I'm wrong that the belief in free will is a valuable aid to sanity.

I did have a very fun and interesting debate with MTG on the subject but I'm still not totally convinced either way. http://www.debate.org...
BiigDogg
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2009 7:12:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/15/2009 9:57:32 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
But in predictive power I think that treating those thoughts as things derived from physical processes is rather useless, as the physical realities which give rise to those thoughts are rather impossible to make crystal clear.
Meanwhile just accepting the natural framework, including "choice", we develop to explain those thoughts allows us to predict and understand behavior pretty good, which makes sense being that we probably evolved to think in this way.
Remember we were once evolved to think the world was flat.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2009 7:16:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Wait, so you're an indeterminist, but against free will?

As my profile states, I'm an indeterminist/source incompatibilist.

If you haven't already, you should check out the debate between me and theLwerd about determinism and free will.

http://www.debate.org...

I've seen it, it's a good one :). I'll look back when it's over, but I do see the inclusion of Bohemian mechanics. While not refuted, since it's another interpretation of quantum mechanics, it is rejected.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2009 7:16:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/15/2009 6:10:05 PM, feverish wrote:
I think I'm a determinist but I believe in free will in a limited capacity (eg. the ability to veto an action or supress an urge).

I don't mind being ridiculed for this opinon which I acknowledge comes more from intuition than research.

I think even if I'm wrong that the belief in free will is a valuable aid to sanity.

I did have a very fun and interesting debate with MTG on the subject but I'm still not totally convinced either way. http://www.debate.org...

What you are referring to is agency, which is the physical capability to make choices. This is perfectly possible, and you're doing it every time (unless your being coerced/blackmailed/physically forced to do something). Of course, agency =/= free will.
BiigDogg
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2009 7:23:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/15/2009 12:42:14 PM, SaintMichael wrote:
Nice try?, but God's omniscient isn't dependent on anything, but itself. Thats why its 'infinite wisdom'. So to clarify what that means in the story is that "the man's" choice to choose vanilla was dependent on God's forsight. One reason why is because if the man had the free choice to choose chocolate after God had forseen vanilla then we have proof negative of God's existence, atleast in the for we imagine. Reason 2 is that God is not just a forseer, but the creator of all things he can forsee. To create with forknowledge, makes the knowledgable being, responsible for the creations actions because the creator with infinite power made the choice to creat something that it knows will do something.:

God's omniscience has three categories: could, will, would. Prior to creating the universe, God knew everything that could happen. Once he decided to create humans, he knew every possible free choice they would make. He knew how each free choice affected other free choices. He used this "would" knowledge to decide the combination of values that he would create the universe with. The effect was exactly what he wished for, but the human actions were themselves done volitionally.

Omniscient is being one of infinite knowledge/wisdom. Not just a fortune teller of people. Therefor one who's omniscient and an ultimate creator must know all things past present and future. Prior to creating the universe God knew what where and how he would do everything. It follows logically because that is included in infinity... Prior to creating the universe God knew what why where and how he would each of its reating would do things. If you say God only knew what humans would do after creation, would mean he had finite knowledge before hand; which is a contradiction.
When I say that God's knowledge is dependent, I'm speaking in terms of logical causality. Because God is eternal, there was never a point in time when he did not know what was going to occur. The question is, however, is God's knowledge a result of human choices or the cause of them?
God's knowledge is a result of being; being omniscient omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Question answered.
What you meant by be dependent was being dependent. To say God is dependent on anything other than his/her/itself is a contradiction to God.

Reason 1: God's omniscience is logically (not chronologically) dependent on the free choices that he foresaw.
Omniscience cannot be dependent on anything, but the being who carries the attribute itself.

Reason 2: If by knowing what a person would freely do, God merely "locked in" their choice when creating the universe then our choices are based on our free will.
You cannot say something omniscient knows what something will freely do. That is based upon the Idea/Fact that if an action was free, it could not be truly known before it is done(Skeptic).
Therefore God chose one action, out of the many he may have forseen, for the human to do.
BiigDogg
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2009 7:36:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/15/2009 4:12:31 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
God's omniscience has three categories: could, will, would. Prior to creating the universe, God knew everything that could happen. Once he decided to create humans, he knew every possible free choice they would make. He knew how each free choice affected other free choices. He used this "would" knowledge to decide the combination of values that he would create the universe with. The effect was exactly what he wished for, but the human actions were themselves done volitionally.

When I say that God's knowledge is dependent, I'm speaking in terms of logical causality. Because God is eternal, there was never a point in time when he did not know what was going to occur. The question is, however, is God's knowledge a result of human choices or the cause of them?

Reason 1: God's omniscience is logically (not chronologically) dependent on the free choices that he foresaw.

Reason 2: If by knowing what a person would freely do, God merely "locked in" their choice when creating the universe then our choices are based on our free will.

I more or less agree with the theist that God's omniscience and free will are compatible - to say that God is omniscient is in other words to say he has perfect knowledge of the future. And yet, if we were to go to a fortune teller and ask for our future (presuming they can do what they do), I don't think we'd say they violated our free will.

1. If a fortune teller predicts what you will do, not what you may do( anyone can do that). 2. Then you are not free. If presime 1. is true, then God or the Fortune teller is your master and you will do what they have told you you will do.
Let me Illustrate.

I go to the fortune teller and ask, "Will I die tomorrow?" The fortune teller tells me, "yes, you and your whole family will die by your hands." The next die I cry, cry and cry, until i remember I have free will. But if the premise above is true, then I do not have any choice, but to do what was accurately forseen. So, do I kill my family and commit suicide, or do I not do what I am to do(this is a conflict)?

I don't want to get into it, but I think the theist has this on their side. Of course, you don't need to presume religion to exclude free will anyway :).
Yet, its the irony that people believe in both at the same time, that draws me to reveal the truth.

P.S. you being the skeptic you are I urge you to think a little clearer about all the implications of an all powerful, all knowing being. I respect the way you think... this is a challenge to think a little harder.
SaintMichael
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2009 9:15:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
BiigDogg,

Unfortunately, repeating the mantra "omniscience is not dependent on anything" does not make it true. I cannot be any more basic: an action determines the knowledge of that action. If a different action had been committed, then the knowledge of that action would have been different. The knowledge does not determine the action.

If you say God only knew what humans would do after creation, would mean he had finite knowledge before hand; which is a contradiction.
That is a contradiction, which is why I did not say that.

Here is an analogy: let's say that in a single instant you become omniscient. Chronologically, you've known everything at the same instant. Logically, however, you would have had to have learned basic addition before learning callous -- as you cannot learn calculus without learning basic addition. Therefore, although you learned both at the same point in time, logically, knowing addition must have preceded knowing calculus.

Though God has known everything for an eternity, his knowledge can be logically prioritized thusly: God knew all possible worlds he could create, he knew what each human would freely do in a given circumstance, he "locked in" those values, and then he knew infallibly that it would occur.
BiigDogg
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2009 1:58:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/15/2009 9:15:33 PM, SaintMichael wrote:
BiigDogg,

Unfortunately, repeating the mantra "omniscience is not dependent on anything" does not make it true. I cannot be any more basic: "an action determines the knowledge of that action." If a different action had been committed, then the knowledge of that action would have been different. The knowledge does not determine the action.
Well in the case of omniscience my claim is true.
"an action determines the knowledge of that action."
Is a proof of knowledged dependent on action(Past and Present). But in the case of forknowledge, there is no action yet taken. So your basic proof has no bearing on omniscience, but past and present knowledge like History and things that are happening.

If you say God only knew what humans would do after creation, would mean he had finite knowledge before hand; which is a contradiction.
That is a contradiction, which is why I did not say that.
We are in an agreeance here

Here is an analogy: let's say that in a single instant you become omniscient. Chronologically, you've known everything at the same instant. Logically, however, you would have had to have learned basic addition before learning callous -- as you cannot learn calculus without learning basic addition. Therefore, although you learned both at the same point in time, logically, knowing addition must have preceded knowing calculus.

Im going off of a whim here, but i assume logic and time work together. So, with the assumption made I would say that logically my instant omniscience would force/allow me to know addition and calculus at the same time.
Keywords: instant, omniscience, logically

Though God has known everything for an eternity, his knowledge can be logically prioritized thusly: God knew all possible worlds he could create, he knew what each human would freely do in a given circumstance, he "locked in" those values, and then he knew infallibly that it would occur.

You presume God has value some knowledge differently then others if prioritizing is capable/necessary. Why would we presume to think knowledge has different values for God; or have any value at all.

"he knew what each human would freely do in a given circumstance" This statement is true, but misleading. You forgot to include that God, in his infinite wisdom, also knew what each human will do. 'Will' implies absolution. Meaning what a human will absolutely do once the universe is created. Limiting said human to one action/choice. Illustratation...

If I know(actually know, not a highly probable guess) what my son will do in the case of picking Candy or Brocolli, that means logically that my son only has one option. That option is the one I know. If my son chooses differently then what I proposed I knew, then it can be logically said that I didnt know.

Its hard to swallow because we percieve free will, but as long as we accept an omniscient being, i would be so bold to say even one who's not God(any fortune teller with all knowledge of past, present and future), we cannot accept free will.

Another point I should make is that knowing all possibilities is not the limitation of omniscience, but it also includes the knowing of what will happen. The implications of knowing of what will happen is a negation of any other possible happenings.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2009 5:51:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/15/2009 7:12:23 PM, BiigDogg wrote:
At 11/15/2009 9:57:32 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
But in predictive power I think that treating those thoughts as things derived from physical processes is rather useless, as the physical realities which give rise to those thoughts are rather impossible to make crystal clear.
Meanwhile just accepting the natural framework, including "choice", we develop to explain those thoughts allows us to predict and understand behavior pretty good, which makes sense being that we probably evolved to think in this way.
Remember we were once evolved to think the world was flat.

We didn't evolve to think the world was flat, we evolved to be able to draw simple conclusions from apparent reality.

I would imagine we did evolve to be able to consider emotional/thought states of other people.

I said it was a matter of perspective. In considering relations between people and things it is most useful to assume that they have thoughts, feelings, and freedom of choice, as the framework we have developed (maybe socially and evolutionarily), to interrelate these things, best allows us to predict the persons behavior.

Being that there are billions of neurons, each connected, through others, with trillions of others, I don't think we have yet, or will ever get to the point where abandoning our psychological framwork in favor of prediction based on observation of physical reality would be a useful thing to do. The way my Physiological Psych teacher put it: "there are more connections amongst neurons in the brain then there are atoms in the universe"; and this is a guy who has spent his life trying to understand how the brain relates to ideas. And our ideas are just as varied.

Even as we come to a better and better understanding of the brain I doubt it will ever be useful to try to predict a persons behavior based only on physical laws.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2009 7:47:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/12/2009 8:14:13 AM, BiigDogg wrote:
I had came to a conclusion of free will versus monotheistic religions such as Judeism, Christianity, and Islam, in that free will cannot exist with an omniscient creator.

I am currently taking a course in the philosophy of ethics and as expected the teacher gave an argument to the existence of both free will and an omniscient creator.

The claim was that one can be knowing, but not cause something to happen.
ex.(given by teacher) If one sees 2 cars racing down the street in an intersecting
path going at the same speed, then one knows that they're going to crash,
but one did not cause it to happen.
- Even without the use of the skeptic view, this example is flawed.
-- In this example I am a human being, the same being that i always am, so I
havent the power to create.

The definition of omniscient is to be infinitely wise...
God is.
Then created.
To create with infinite wisdom, is to know what one's creating.
To create with infinite wisdom, one must create with purpose because one is creating with past present and forknowledge.
To know ones creation, infinitely, is to what it does and will do.

So I am arguing the causality that negates free will is that of creating a being with intent for it to do something. and being omniscient the being that was created will do such thing, because one who's omniscient cannot be incorrect.

--I hope my logic followed in some wierd way. And I hope to learn if there's a better explanation to Free will along side of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent creator.

I think that free will is definitely possible. Although we belive in God, we still have the "choice", or "decision" to do such things that would put us in danger,protect us, or whatever is your definition of happiness. You have free will to be happy,angry,content,frustrated,or whatever emotion you wanna feel.

They say God does not operate within your intellect, and he can't be found there. I find this to be true. He is in your spirit being. There are several parts of us that make us who we are. We have emotional,physical,intellectual,and spiritual intelligences. Now if this is not saying you have free will, I don't know what does.

WHat is it you are feeling confined from?
BiigDogg
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2009 7:54:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/20/2009 7:47:46 PM, kelly224 wrote:
At 11/12/2009 8:14:13 AM, BiigDogg wrote:
They say God does not operate within your intellect, and he can't be found there. I find this to be true. He is in your spirit being. There are several parts of us that make us who we are. We have emotional,physical,intellectual,and spiritual intelligences. Now if this is not saying you have free will, I don't know what does.

WHat is it you are feeling confined from?

I hope im not jumping to conclusion, but nothing you said explained your belief in the possibility between an omniscient being and free will coexisting
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2009 4:36:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/15/2009 6:10:05 PM, feverish wrote:
I think I'm a determinist but I believe in free will in a limited capacity (eg. the ability to veto an action or supress an urge).

That's not true. If you suppress an urge, it's because you are determined to do so. For instance, if you are on a diet but you are hungry, and you choose not to eat (suppressing an urge), then your 'choice' to not eat would be based on the fact that you're trying to lose weight... In other words, the decision was the inevitable consequence of antecedent states.

To clarify further (since most people don't get this), your "choice" not to eat would be based on the fact perhaps that you are overweight, and that is because of X, and that is because of Y, etc. Further, your decision making abilities are affected by things like your discipline... which is because of P, which is because of Q, etc. The P's and Q's can represent things like experiences 1 and 2, or things like genetics, etc. So the point is that all of the factors lined up in the universe at that moment to cause you to make THAT decision. Therefore, your decision was determined. You could not make any other decision; you couldn't choose outside of yourself (outside of what as inevitable). Thus, you have no free will.


I think even if I'm wrong that the belief in free will is a valuable aid to sanity.

We don't need to believe that in order for us to be unique, we need to have "free will" if free will is defined properly. The proper definition of course is the ability to choose outside of ourselves (what we are determined to choose). People don't like to believe in determinism because they equate it to us being robots; the reality is that we're unique on the basis of our experiences, and those experiences themselves give us the ability to distinguish ourselves and to make our mark on the world. Being determined is not depressing if you think about it that way.
President of DDO
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2009 4:40:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/12/2009 8:14:13 AM, BiigDogg wrote:
Your entire argument is based upon the flawed assumption that God individually creates every person. God created Adam and Eve. Past that he gave humans free will to do what they would like. God knows what every human will do, however he in no way is responsible for what they do because he does not individually create each human.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2009 8:12:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
P.S. you being the skeptic you are I urge you to think a little clearer about all the implications of an all powerful, all knowing being. I respect the way you think... this is a challenge to think a little harder.

I have, and I think don't think your conclusions follow. But it's not really something interesting for me to debate.