Critical Logic Failure

[Pedersen]

This affects Christianity, at a minimum. I'm pretty it affects most other religions, too.

Given: God is omniscient (knows anything and everything)
Belief: God has given free will to all people
Result: Any religion that holds these two statements as immutable truths has a critical failure in their belief system.

These two statements are incompatible.

Not a formal proof, but here's how to get to that result.

God knows everything. Therefore, God knows what decisions I will make before I make them. Failure to know this means that God is not omniscient, and does not know everything.

Therefore, anything that has ever happened in the history of the world is something that God knew would happen before it happened. Furthermore, anything that will ever happen in the future is already known by God.

Definition: Predestination: S: (n) predestination, foreordination, preordination, predetermination ((theology) being determined in advance; especially the doctrine (usually associated with Calvin) that God has foreordained every event throughout eternity (including the final salvation of mankind))

Since everything is already known by God, our futures are predetermined (or predestined, if you prefer that term). Therefore, it is impossibe for us to alter that path.

Definition: Free Will: Freedom of self determination and action independent of external causes.

Free will requires that we are able to make choices. Predestination means that we are unable to make choices.

God is omniscient. Our lives are predetermined. Free will does not exist in such an environment.

And yet, such religions state that we have free will. Critical Logic Failure.

Now, I know I'm not the first person in some 5000 years to think of this. And lots of people who lived in those 5000 years are way smarter than I will ever be. Some one must have an answer to this.

Anybody know who it was, and can tell me?

[Sylvia727]

Actually, a lot of Christian theologians have addressed this. Off the top of my head, it was St. Francis of Assisi who speculated that God does not exist inside time as we know it, but rather is outside of time altogether. He knows everything that will happen because for him, everything happens at the same time.

[Boozy]

The French existentialists had a lot of fun with this one. Sartre, specifically, proposed that although man's free will is in actuality an illusion, it is real because it is real to him. That is, if we don't know what we will choose, our choice is a manifestation of free will despite God knowing what we will do in advance. Sort of a forerunner to the anthropic principle.

Like Sylvia said, pretty much every Christian theologian has addressed this question, and a version of it was covered in my ancient Greek philosophy courses as well.... but I can't remember any specifics. Aristotle is a safe bet for some good nuggets.

[AFPheonix]

Or, maybe our lives are like a Choose Your Own Adventure book to God. He knows all possible outcomes for our choices.

[CancelMyService]

Actually, a lot of Christian theologians have addressed this. Off the top of my head, it was St. Francis of Assisi who speculated that God does not exist inside time as we know it, but rather is outside of time altogether. He knows everything that will happen because for him, everything happens at the same time.

Isn't it amazing how God can be defined and redefined to cover any and all loopholes that appear in religions?

[DesignFox]

Or, maybe our lives are like a Choose Your Own Adventure book to God. He knows all possible outcomes for our choices.

If God does exist, I think this is a pretty good explanation. *giggles*

[Slytovhand]

There was an Islamic philosopher who said something similar about his question. Life is like a game of cards - you get dealt your hand (fate), how you play them is up to you (choice). It's pretty obvious all that can happen, but not what will happen.

But this actually bypasses the actual question, and is semantics. The question suggests that God knows exactly what will happen - not what can happen. Or is that part of the limitation of our explanations and definitions? Technically, why should any such 'god' type person be limited to how we choose to define things??

[Shangri-laschild]

I guess I see it as a parent thing. As a parent, sometimes you know your kid is going to do something but knowing they are going to do it doesn't change the fact that it was their free will and their choice and they did it. Being able to see/predict the future doesn't make the people any less in control.

Lets say you look into the future and see what I have for lunch. How does that make what I ate any less my choice? Just because he can see what we're going to do, doesn't mean it was any less our choice to do those things. The only way it would mean we didn't have free will is if he actually locked in our decisions. Knowing how a movie is going to end doesn't make you in control of the movie or plot.

I guess I just don't see why one has to rule out the other.

[Slytovhand]

I think that's part of the point... if you already know, then isn't that apparent choice already locked in? And thus, in a way, predestined.

Also, if God did create everyone and everything, it has been created in such a way that someone in his position is going to know absolutely everything that is going to happen, and thus the concept of 'choice' and 'free will' is illlusory. Pure logic... if you know the position of everything in the universe, and you know every force acting on everything in the universe, then you can predict with 100% accuracy everything that is going to happen, and has happened... at least, that's one line of philosophy. From that, there is no 'free will'.


Slyt

[Shangri-laschild]

All my friends may know for sure how I'll react to a specific thing. Them knowing for sure doesn't make it any less my choice.

Let's say I'm predestine to do something. If I don't know that I am, and I'm still thinking out my options and making the decision for myself, how is that not free will. I guess maybe we're seeing free will kind of differently is where the difference comes in.

[Slytovhand]

From this last sttement - yes, it would appear so. And that's also an appropriate way to say it...it's about appearences.

We 'appear' to have free will by weighing up the 'options', but in reality, it's already a given. Which is where Pedersen's OP comes in.

We appear to have this thing called 'free will', but God is omniscient - so we don't really (unless we adjust the meaning of the terms).

Slyt

(tag, your turn )

[Shangri-laschild]

I guess I still don't see how someone knowing something is going to happen makes it any less free will.

I can see how maybe because he's all powerful he might direct our lives, but it's all a bunch of paths we can take and just because we're given an oppertunity doesn't mean we have to take it. I can give you two choices. Even if I know which one you're going to take, I did still give you two choices. yeah, I'm not god but I guess I still see it as fairly similar.

[Pedersen]

Was going to do some reading up first, but didn't have the chance to do so yet. Too much of this "real life" thing (dammit, been asking for that pause button, keep getting promised it for RL 2.0, but can't get a release date for it!).

Here's something else to consider then.

According to most monotheistic religions, God (by whatever name) is not only omniscient, but also omnipotent.

This means he knows every choice I will make before I make it. Furthermore, 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.

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).

Now, for the other point: What about the fact that we, at a minimum, have the illusion of free will? Isn't that the same thing?

No, it's not. I'll use the analogy of a prison. Pretend for a minute that the nearest major city to you is a prison. Within that prison, you enjoy the ideal of freedom, but you are not able to leave that city. Are you still a free person?

If so, shrink it down. What about if you are restricted to a couple dozen blocks? One block? One building? One room in that building? Remember, under all of those scenarios, you will enjoy the ideal of freedom (however you define that ideal), including receiving sufficient support to do so. For instance, if you are restricted to a single room, then the jobs that are available will allow you to work from that room. Furthermore, you will be given sufficiently advanced technology that you are able to enjoy social interaction, etc, as if you are not a prisoner in that room.

Are you still a prisoner? The same applies to this: You have the illusion of free will, but that is not the same as having free will.

Hope this helps to make things a little more clear as to where I'm coming from.

[Shangri-laschild]

According to most monotheistic religions, God (by whatever name) is not only omniscient, but also omnipotent.

This means he knows every choice I will make before I make it. Furthermore, 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.

Being able to doesn't mean that he would be for sure. What if he's able to, but doesn't

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).

All this changes is the situation that you are in, not the direction you take with it.

Now, for the other point: What about the fact that we, at a minimum, have the illusion of free will? Isn't that the same thing?

No, it's not. I'll use the analogy of a prison. Pretend for a minute that the nearest major city to you is a prison. Within that prison, you enjoy the ideal of freedom, but you are not able to leave that city. Are you still a free person?

Agreed, in this case, you are not still a free person.

The same applies to this: You have the illusion of free will, but that is not the same as having free will.

Hope this helps to make things a little more clear as to where I'm coming from.

While I agree that the illusion of free will is not the same thing as actual free will, I still think we do have free will.

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.

[Slytovhand]

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?