Critical Logic Failure

[Shangri-laschild]

On the last point, what if you are only able to see the colour red? Everything you look at becomes red.

If someone shows you a stack of differently coloured pieces of paper - and you are asked which coloured paper you prefer - do you really have a choice?

But that still comes back to their only being an illusion of free will and my argument is that there isn't an illusion and that we actually do have free will.

I would also argue, that we always have a choice. Maybe you see everything in red but you hate the color. Then you prefer none of them.

[Pedersen]

What if he's able to, but doesn't

I answered that above:

Basically: An omnipotent, omniscient god makes all choices for all people all the time, especially when you consider that failure to alter the course of events is equivalent to making the choice that whatever was in place will be allowed to continue. The situation becomes even worse if you allow for that same god to be the creator of all existence, since he had to create everything, and put it in motion (or in place) to start with. He made the initial choices that resulted in everything since then.

And he either makes choices today (thus changing our course of action), or fails to make choices (thus continuing on his original plan).

I'm expanding it a bit, because my original premise didn't (to my mind) require it, but I can see now that it does. An omniscient, omnipotent, all-creator god is incapable of allowing his creations to have free will by the very definitions of the words.

• Omniscient: Knows everything.
• Omnipotent: Can do anything.
• All-Creator: Created everything.

If he's omniscient, he knows everything I will ever do before I've ever done it. If he's omnipotent, he's capable of altering those decisions (regardless of whether or not he does). If he created everything, he set up the initial state of everything. Being omniscient, he would know the path that everything would take from that initial state through all of time. The only time that path would change is if he caused a change using some portion of his omnipotence.

The end result of this is that your life is predestined from well before you were born. The only time you would deviate from this path is when god makes a choice to have you deviate from it.

Lets say that the world was put together by god. We are given the situations and are able to react to them how we will. How is that different from if either there is no god or there is one that can't see the future? Still the same ability to make our own choices.

Actually, the situation is very different. You are describing three distinctly different scenarios:

Scenario: World was put together by omniscient, omnipotent god. All choices known and made in advance. Life is predestined. Free will does not exist.

Scenario: No god exists. Universe came into existence spontaneously through unknown methods. Life may still be predestined due to the way the universe functions, and free will may not exist. Of course, life might not be predestined, and free will may exist. Unknown.

Scenario: God does not know the future. Therefore, God is not omniscient. This, though, does allow for the possibility of free will.

On the last point, what if you are only able to see the colour red? Everything you look at becomes red.

If someone shows you a stack of differently coloured pieces of paper - and you are asked which coloured paper you prefer - do you really have a choice?

Very similar. And I have to agree: No, you don't really have a choice. You would have the illusion of a choice, though. Unless all colors looked like the same shade of red to you. You could pick a preferred shade of read, but that's as far as your choice could possibly go.

[Slytovhand]

What if...

God knows every possible scenario - but not the precise one/s that actually happen? Still omniscient, though....

This allows for both - free will and predetermination... doesn't it?

[Sylvia727]

he has the capacity to change my mind before I'm even aware that it would be changed. As a result, the only choices I can make are the choices he makes for me.

Official Christian dogma (at least for the branch I was raised in) states that God has that capability, but chooses not to use it. That when God gave Adam and Eve free will, it actually was significant, and made them different from the animals. God made the choice not to interfere with humans' decisions...I don't remember hearing that he doesn't interfere with the consequences, though.

I don't think that choosing not to interfere is the same thing as choosing the course of events. Physically, it may come out the same, but mentally, spiritually, and philosophically, it's the difference between free will and enslaved will.

Let's say I find some hardcore drugs in my friend's room. I could take the drugs away, and follow her around all day and take away all the drugs she finds. I could rob her of the choice whether or not to do something that could hurt her. Or I could let her know that I'm here to help if she wants me, and step back and let her make her own decision. She decides to take the drugs, ODs, and dies. I didn't kill her. I could have saved her life, but at the cost of her free will. I think that's the key difference. God could interfere, has the ability to interfere, knows what will happen if he doesn't interfere, but chooses not to in order to preserve free will. Let's say I did save my friend's life-- how much of a life would she have, without the ability to choose to endanger herself? How much would I have really saved?

This is actually the point of any religion, philosophy, or conspiracy theory where I throw up my hands and shrug. Alright, I have no free will. What do you want me to do about it? Sure, maybe The Matrix is right and I live a comfortable little life of delusions, without the strength of will to survive the understandings of harsh reality. Okay, whatever. I'll just continue on down the cowtrack now. Mooo.

[Shangri-laschild]

I answered that above:

Oops...yup you did. So in other words, by being able to make a choice in general, you are making one, and your choice (interfearing or not) does affect it. Now I think I'm explaining wrong, but I think I get what you're saying.

Another thing to think about is this...lets say you back me into a corner on something. Just because I reacted how you knew I would and how you were trying to get me to react doesn't mean I didn't freely choose to react like that.

What if...

God knows every possible scenario - but not the precise one/s that actually happen? Still omniscient, though....

This allows for both - free will and predetermination... doesn't it?

This would also work.

[Pedersen]

What if...

God knows every possible scenario - but not the precise one/s that actually happen? Still omniscient, though....

This allows for both - free will and predetermination... doesn't it?

Actually, no, it doesn't, because it violates the definition of omniscient. You're saying "Omniscient except for ...". Omniscient is all knowing, not knowing most of everything.

Official Christian dogma (at least for the branch I was raised in) states that God has that capability, but chooses not to use it. That when God gave Adam and Eve free will, it actually was significant, and made them different from the animals. God made the choice not to interfere with humans' decisions...I don't remember hearing that he doesn't interfere with the consequences, though.

Yep. I've heard similar. But that particular idea negates the idea and definition of omniscience. If God knows everything except what will happen next, then he's not really omniscient, is he?

[Slytovhand]

Actually, Pedersen, when I was doing epistemology (I think it was in that one), the big thing they were focussing on was the actual definitions of the word. I think like you, and was arguing in that direction, but it was the whole 'but that's your definition and interpretation of the word' that was getting shot at...

Which boiled down to - how do we know that 'omniscient' actually means your version instead of 'mine' (ie - knows all possibilities)???





Nah.... didn't rub with me either

S

[Sylvia727]

I guess my entire position can be summed up as "knowing what will happen next doesn't influence what will happen next". Y'all may disagree. I don't think that knowledge, isolated from all other factors, has a weight. It can only influence the behaviors and actions of the knower. So if God chooses not to participate, then his knowledge is withdrawn as a factor.

[Pedersen]

I guess my entire position can be summed up as "knowing what will happen next doesn't influence what will happen next". Y'all may disagree. I don't think that knowledge, isolated from all other factors, has a weight. It can only influence the behaviors and actions of the knower. So if God chooses not to participate, then his knowledge is withdrawn as a factor.

That's actually an interesting statement. I don't think I can agree with it, though. If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and the creator of everything, then God did participate at the very beginning. He created everything, and set it all in motion. As a result, he knows exactly how everything will proceed from that starting point. He does not need to do anything any more, he already knows what happens next.

He's already taken away free will by virture of having made the universe, set everything in motion, and knowing what will happen by knowing where everything is and what will happen when things move in the directions he chose. He only needs to participate if he changes his mind.

Current, active participation is no longer a requirement. Here's an analogy for you to ponder.

Imagine that all of life is a great big tv show, and god is watching tv. Now, he also wrote the script for the show (when he planned all of creation: omniscience), he did the production for the show (when he made it: omnipotence), and he knows exactly how the next scene will play out (more omniscience). The only way anything changes from the original script is if god does a quick tweak himself. We're all actors in his tv show, and we can do nothing but follow our script (required for him to be both omnipotent and omniscient).

If he does nothing, we just follow the script. Hell, he could take a bathroom break, ignoring the tv entirely, and we would still have no choice but to follow the script he'd already laid out. He's not participating then. He's not even watching. But, even still, we have no free will.

Which leads back to the original premise: There is a critical logical error in pretty much every monotheistic religion that believes that god is omniscient, omnipotent, and the creator of everythingm and that believes we have free will. I've not even dug into the consequences of this error yet, and those are quite interesting, too, I think. Should go and start that thread.

[Slytovhand]

Hey Pedersen... I got one for ya!


Did God have any choice in what He did in creating the Universe?

Or, does God have ADD? After all - he wrote the script and 'knows' how the whole thing will play out... why bother watching?

And now I remember exactly what I wrote on that paper... perhaps, just perhaps, (since G is omniscient), we aren't what's 'real', we are just one of the possible versions of creation that God is considering before putting out the final version. To us it would appear to be 'real', but to the real reality - obviously we're not. That way, God gets to know all possibilities because He gets to see them all run through his head - but there is no compulsion to actually create things that way. Good and evil don't exist - because in this way, nothing actually does - except God and his thoughts..."I think, therefore you might be..."

S

[Pedersen]

Did God have any choice in what He did in creating the Universe?

How should I know? I don't presume to be god, nor know what restrictions he has on himself. For all I know, God actually does have free will. Of course, he could be just as constrained to a lack of free will.

In which case, God himself got a raw deal

Or, does God have ADD? After all - he wrote the script and 'knows' how the whole thing will play out... why bother watching?

He really doesn't have a choice, though. Being omniscient means knowing everything. Which means that, even if he's off taking a piss, he still knows what's going on here. Which means I pity him all the more. Us mortals can choose to hide from reality. That choice itself is taken away from him if he's omniscient.

And now I remember exactly what I wrote on that paper... perhaps, just perhaps, (since G is omniscient), we aren't what's 'real', we are just one of the possible versions of creation that God is considering before putting out the final version.

And yet, whether or not we are in the real reality or not is irrelevant. You're doing a variation of Descartes' thought experiment, so let's carry it forward a bit.

Descartes' fundamental premise was simple: I doubt everything that can possibly be doubted. I am unable to tell the difference between dream and wakefulness, so I doubt my senses. This means that all scientific experiment must be doubted, as well, since all of it relies on my being able to trust at least one of my senses (any measurements must, in the end, be read by the eyes or heard by the ears). It is possible that some outside force makes math work, so I doubt the theorems of math. The only thing I cannot doubt is that I am actually doubting. Doubting is a thought process. Ergo, I think therefore I am.

Now, remember that I'm doubting my senses? I am unable to prove you exist except as a construct of my mind. However, in that fashion, at a minimum, you must exist, since I am communicating with you. You may be more real than a thought experiment, but I am unable to prove that. However, you are at least as real as a thought experiment, and therefore at least as real as anything else I am able to perceive.

Ergo, in some fashion, you exist. You are real.

This can be extrapolated to the rest of creation. In some fashion, even if only as a thought construct, all of creation exists. Are we necessarily the final form of reality that God will make? Who knows? But, for the moment, we are as real as anything else.

Thus, the question of what reality might become is rendered irrelevant.

Yes, I really do spend my time thinking about stuff like this. I'm just that weird

[Evandril]

Assuming the presence of such a diety, free will is still possible. The fact God is aware of what choices you will make, and set it up so that you would make them does not mean you were not free to make other choices...It just means you *wouldn't*, though you could.

An analogy would be putting some ants near some loose sugar. The fact you know they will gather and eat the sugar doesn't negate their choice in doing so...It was quite possible for them to ignore it, but they are unlikely to make that choice.

[Slytovhand]

But, in this case, God has actuallly created people to make the choice of his choosing - not the individual's.

[Pedersen]

The fact God is aware of what choices you will make, and set it up so that you would make them does not mean you were not free to make other choices...It just means you *wouldn't*, though you could.

So, it is your premise that you are capable of making a choice that an omniscient entity would not know you were going to make?

I suggest examining the definition of omniscient. That link takes you to various definitions for the word. They all have something in common though: They all say something similar to "knows everything", and none of them add in "except".

If god is omniscient, then he knows what choices you will make before you make them. It is not possible to make a choice that he does not know you will make by the very definition of the word.

Free will means that you are capable of choosing between options. Omniscient means that your choice will be known before you make a choice.

Now, go and look up omnipotent. They all say something similar to "Can do anything", and do not include an "except" clause. If god is omnipotent, he is capable of configuring things such that I will make a different choice than I would otherwise make, and of doing so in such a way that I will not be aware that I have been manipulated.

Now, god either chooses to interfere, or he does not. If he chooses to interfere, then he removes my free will (this, I believe, is unarguable). If he does not, then he allows me to continue on the original path I would have taken that he already knows. However, god has to make the choice whether or not to interfere with my path.

Therefore, god chooses which path I will take, not me. I have no free will. Not if he is omniscient and omnipotent. It is not possible.

An analogy would be putting some ants near some loose sugar. The fact you know they will gather and eat the sugar doesn't negate their choice in doing so...It was quite possible for them to ignore it, but they are unlikely to make that choice.

Actually, this analogy is poor. There could be a host of reasons why those ants would not choose the sugar that you would be unaware of. Perhaps the sugar is tainted. Perhaps those specific ants are seeking a different food than sugar at that time. Perhaps their receptors are incapable of detecting anything but brown sugar, and you put down the white sugar.

Any number of reasons. However, they all rely on something you are unaware of. By the definitions used in various religions, god is omniscient. There is nothing he is unaware of. Therefore, he would know, as a fact, whether those ants would go for that sugar before the ants were even brought into the same vicinity with that sugar.

But, in this case, God has actuallly created people to make the choice of his choosing - not the individual's.

Well said. And much shorter than I said it

[Evandril]

So, it is your premise that you are capable of making a choice that an omniscient entity would not know you were going to make?

No, I said you have the choice to make various different decisions...but, having all the information, what choice I will make would already be known to God, though it is unknown to me before I make it. I do know I'll present my kids 'choices' I know the outcome to, to let them 'choose' things for themselves. Does the fact I am sure of their choice negate the fact they did make the choice?

Actually, this analogy is poor. There could be a host of reasons why those ants would not choose the sugar that you would be unaware of. Perhaps the sugar is tainted. Perhaps those specific ants are seeking a different food than sugar at that time. Perhaps their receptors are incapable of detecting anything but brown sugar, and you put down the white sugar.

Any number of reasons. However, they all rely on something you are unaware of. By the definitions used in various religions, god is omniscient. There is nothing he is unaware of. Therefore, he would know, as a fact, whether those ants would go for that sugar before the ants were even brought into the same vicinity with that sugar.

Which is why I used the example. I cannot give an 'omniscient' example, since that is something we've yet to achieve in any reguard, to my knowledge.

I worked retail sales for a good amount of time, and the main focus of sales is to cause someone to make the choice you want, preferably without them noticing it. Even when the outcome was what we knew it would be...It was still their choice, 'predestined' or no.