>free will and an omniscient God cannot exist together
Please. There are plenty of ways that they can. And even so, what exactly is the reason that the two HAVE to be put in opposition? Is there empirical evidence that states that they cannot coexist?
My personal understanding of how the two can coexist is this: God is able to know every possible path a soul can take in their life. However, free will stipulates that God does not know what choices that soul will make until the soul makes the choice. Omniscience is retained because true omniscient knowledge involves knowing all possible outcomes, not the specific choices.
>>402483
If a god knows everything there is to know, why wouldn't he know what specific outcome would or would not happen?
What is the empirical evidence for or against the notion of either free will or a God?
What is this business with free will? How is it defined? What is the trajectory? Are you speaking about a metaphysical conception of free will or an existential one? Maybe some other conception?
How about God? What type of God are you speaking about? What properties does this said God have? How do you know those properties? What is omniscience? Is it merely an extrapolation of a finite's being's capacities, and so, in actuality does not reflect an infinite as such, but rather, reflects a finite being's imagination of infinitude? What are possible bounds of our knowledge of God? What is God? With emphasis paid to the is-ness of God? Is God just merely a being among other beings? Or is God Being as such?
In general, what is at stake in this intersection between free will and God? Does it even fucking matter?
>>402495
because he created an entity (rational soul) with the specific intention of allowing it sovereignty over itself. if God is still aware of every possible path it could take, it doesn't detract from God's omniscience
>>402518
I don't see the point of making a post stating that you're not interested in the topic of the thread. Do you have something specific you want to ask, or would you rather meaninglessly throw around parameters to the discussion like you're so fucking smart? Get a fucking grip
>>402539
Because I have no fucking orientation to the question. I literally have no idea what you are arguing because you were so fucking vague.
At least answer this, are you more interested in a theological answer akin to Aquinas or Augustine, which would entail a metaphysical response. Or are you more interested in an existential orientation to the question, e.g. like Kierkegaard?
>>402483
>>402528
(Not him)
That is completely arbitrary nonsense to protect your notion of god. There is no way or reason and omnipotent god would not know exactly what would happen. This fails logically.
It is possible, but god would not be able to know the outcome of your free will.
Otherwise it would mean your life is predetermined with a false sense of free will.
I mean god could know all possibilities and then not know the decision you would actually make, however that means god does not know what you would do, which means god is incapable of seeing the future.
Which means he is not all powerful.
Personally, I think if there was a god, he might have limitations.
>>402610
Can you explain why? I fail to see how it's arbitrary nonsense. Why would God not be able to imbue a sense of agency into something he creates?
>>402483
>Is there empirical evidence
>theist
>using empirical evidence
>>402677
If you have doubts you can easily look in the bible empirically
>>402676
That's not the problem. He is omnipotent of course he can do that. The problem is not knowing everything that being will ever. That is the impossibility that is asinine.
This is really a two part answer to your question:
1) If there is a God and he is all knowing and all powerful then he has to know what choice we are going to make (assuming we have free will). If he doesn't know what we're going to do in advance, he can't be all powerful and all knowing. Taking that as a given that he is all powerful and all knowing, then we cannot make a different choice that he didn't see coming, therefore no we have no free will.
2) Even without bringing God into the discussion, does free will exist? If we are a combination of electrical neural impulses influenced by our pasts (memories/lessons) and the current external stimuli around us, then it could be argued that if you could have that all in one large equation that you would always be able to calculate how someone would act or a choice they would make at any one moment. In this regard, we may think we have free will, but in reality there's only one path it was possible for us to take, the one we eventually did and any other possibilities, while useful to convince ourselves that we're doing the right/best thing were never possible.
>>402483
Why can't God not know the future actions of free humans?
Here is another kicker.
Let say god says "Since I am god and all powerful, I can know all outcomes yet still am powerful enough to create a universe that you have free rules regardless of logic and its all magic."
Ergo the logic and cause and effect do not apply.
How can you be responsible in a universe that has no rules of cause and effect?
Maybe in one where god is being a dick.
>>402697
But my speculation is that God would still be aware of all possible branching paths. That seems to me to satisfy omnipotence. The question would center around what granting agency would effectively mean. If you take time out of the picture, you're asking if God could create a soul that would accept or reject him. Prior to the moment of creation, God would know what the possibilities are, and at that moment, the soul instantaneously chooses from those possibilities.
God is creating something that functionally has a choice. He is still omnipotent and all knowing, but the thing he is creating has an instance of agency.
>>402676
Because Free will implies not knowing the consequence of your action.
Whether it be you or god.
DEFINE FREE WILL
>>402715
It doesn't matter regardless. These two statements can never co-exist:
God knows everything that will (not just might) happen.
We can choose what we want to do.
The fact that there is an external observer that knows what choice we will make must mean that we have no choice but to make that decision. To us, it may seem like we have free will, but we can NEVER make a choice other than what the external observer knows we will or he'd be wrong and in contradiction with himself. And God can never be wrong, can he?
In conclusion, free will may or may not exist, but if there is a God in the classical sense (all powerful/all knowing), then it definitely doesn't.
>>402715
He is not all knowing if he doesn't know what will happen.
Even if he knows all possible endings.
>>402715
Well here is the deal. God knows all the outcomes.
Where as humans have imperfect information about the results of their actions?
How can we be responsible if we don't really know what will happen because of our actions.
>>402715
I understand what you are saying. It just is not compatible with omnipotence. There is absolutely no reason for god not to know.
Time ior lack there of s meaningless. Omnipotence is omnipotence. Not being able to know with certitude everything at all time is not omnipotent.
You are just trying to wedge your conception of god together with your conception of free will and failing. Others in this thread have pointed it out as well.
>>402734
That's the point, we're not responsible for our actions. I've come to accept this in myself and others.
Think of it like this. If you have a time machine and go forward a day and see a friend of yours die in an accident. If you go back in time and pretend you don't know, he'll still die in an accident. You knew what would happen and unless you took an active role in changing it, then it won't change.
As such, if God can see what tomorrow looks like, then he knows what choice I make today. If I make a different choice then God's vision of tomorrow is wrong and he would be imperfect and in error, which is contradictory to how he is classically defined.
>>402728
You're assuming that the ultimate decision of the soul with agency has specific meaning or realness. From God's perspective they are all equally valid and real if they conform to his will regardless. Everything could end up exactly how God wants regardless of a soul's specific choice, so in a sense the choice itself is irrelevant.
>>402739
I'm messing around with some ideas. What is the failure state here? Or are you just trying to be mildly hostile and kill the thread because you assume I'm a Christian? Fuck off.
>>402756
It's not about God wanting me to pick A over B. It's that he knows which one I will pick already. Therefore I have to pick the one he knows I will pick. Therefore there is no free will. Yes, A and B are both equally valid, but for him to be all knowing he has to know which I will pick.
Are you saying God is not all powerful and all knowing?
>>402756
Get off the cross faggot.
The falure state is that God not knowing anything at any time is not possible for an omnipotent god. I am not the only one telling you this you are being stubborn.
well according to Psalm 139:4, God does know what a person will say, meaning he would also know what a person would do
>>402765
I'm saying that whether I pick A or B may not constitute "knowledge" in terms of God's all-knowingness. God knows everything about the branching paths from A and B and it all ends up conforming to his will regardless. So the agency left to the soul belongs to the soul and still doesn't take away from God's power/all knowingness.
>>402765
Now if you're putting limits on God's power in that he can't see the future, there free will would be possible. If he is just willfully ignorant (chooses not to look), then there's no free will again because he could look if he wanted to and therefore free will is lost again.
The point I tried to make earlier though is that this whole discussion is meaningless anyway. I can convince myself with logic that free will doesn't exist without even bringing up God.
>>402785
If God can't see the future, then he's not an all knowing, all powerful God. Then free will is possible. But you are now claiming that there is power that God lacks, which goes against the definition of God.
>>402791
I don't think calling it "seeing the future" is relevant. Take out the element of prophesying. It's more like writing a computer program and part of it involves a random number generator.
>>402483
Why didn't God just shut the serpent up?
Boom, free will in paradise. You're welcome.
>>402791
Just accept the fact that you have no free will because God knows the future. You had no choice but to start this thread on 4chan tonight which would help you find the truth about your own existence. Also, then you can rest easier knowing that for your entire life, every choice you think you've made really could not have turned out any differently and that it's not your fault that you're where you are right now in this moment in your life. Everything was part of a "plan", be it from God, the rules God setup regarding how our universe runs itself, or just bling coincidence that physics exists in this manner in our pocket of space.
Take solace and joy that everything you've ever done is "right" because there is was no possibility to do anything else than what you did.
>>402801
Are you saying that God cannot see the future that will happen? Did someone not post a psalm a few posts above that said he would? You can't have it both ways.
>>402801
Also, even if there's a random number generator, he's God for God's sake. Are you saying he made something that even he can't predict with 100% certainty? If so, then once again you're putting limits on God, which would make him not God.
LOOKS LIKE CALVIN WAS RIGHT FUCKERS
BETTER DEAL W/ IT
Free will isn't incompatible with determinism. Just because you were going to make a choice doesn't make it not your choice. Of course your decisions have causes. There's no magic switch in your head that picks things for no reason.
>>402815
What does a psalm have to do with messing around with a classic contradiction/problem? Please stop with this shit.
>>402818
I don't know. I've been dancing around with this for a couple of hours. When I phrased it that way, as if God was writing a program, it suddenly made sense. I can see it both ways 2 be honest. Can you not see where I'm going with this?
>>402825
Somewhat yes. To me, "free will' is just what we use to rationalize what we're doing. It's not about making the choice, it's about convincing us that we're doing the right thing. But to say that you can have both predestination/determination and free will is like saying flipping a coin can land on both heads and tails at the same time. This isn't quantum physics with the double slit experiment.
As for a magic switch in our heads, no. But we are a combination of our pasts, our current needs/desires and all the external stimuli around us. Taking all of that into account we make a judgement on what we should do. Without the benefit of hindsight, how could we ever take the same variables and make a different choice? Such isn't possible. As such, there's no free will even without bringing God into the discussion at all. He's superfluous to the argument of if free will exists or not.
>>402841
The pseudorandom number generator only looks like it could happens 2 ways because you can't fully grasp how it works. But God could because he's omniscient, and he would know the outcome every time.
>>402483
there isn't a solid definition of either of those things. this question and most others relating to them is just stupid people arguing about words with less than no purpose.
>>402841
I can see that before you can continue to work on this argument you need to define God. Define what he can and cannot do. If he knows what his random generator will come up with each time (even though it's random), no free will possible. If it's really random even to him, then free will is possible, but again, are you putting a limit on God's power?
>>402825
Your right but the argument is that god is omniscient whilst free will exists, determinism has nothing to do with it.
If god doesn't know what choice you'll make then he isn't omniscient.
>>402841
Say I flip a coin and God knows it's going to come up heads. To me, it would be 50/50 it's heads or tails. I could go back to that moment a million times and bet on tails each time and expect to be right 50% of the time, but I would never be right, because God knew it would come out heads.
>>402857
One compatibilist definition of free will proposes that free will still exists even if there is only one possible outcome. This is probably not a popular definition of free will, but I can't see how nondeterministic free will would work at all. If your choices don't have causes, aren't they essentially random?
I have no idea why so people want free will to exist so hard. Guess it's just arrogance.
>>402852
Well this is sort of like "Can God make a rock so big he can't move it". Can God create a random number generator so random he can't predict the outcome?
It seems from this perspective God couldn't be both all knowing and all powerful.
>>402867
Everything has a cause and an effect. Again, free will is how rationalize what we're doing, not something that that allows to chose between 2 or more things. The decision has already been made for us by either an external observer seeing the future (God) or by our brain chemistry and laws of science.
>>402874
In that case God is just a more powerful mortal and not "God". It would also infer that if he's not all powerful then something is probably more powerful than him as he's not at the top of the pyramid. So, in that case, do you admit that God has a God and so on?
>>402881
Continuing on that line of thought, if God is not all powerful then it would make sense that there is something akin to God of God as God is to man. Therefore, maybe God's God can see the future, which again means that even if the God over men couldn't, that free will is still gone because God's God could see the future.
>>402874
Unlike >>402881 it makes sense that God could create something with a random piece involved.
Assigning agency to something doesn't mean God loses his agency. And as for God not knowing, maybe God knows what choice the person will make at the same time the person makes the choice? If creation is a part of God, this doesn't seem incompatible.
>>402901
This will be the last thing I put out here before going to bed. You need to determine what the powers of God are. You need to define what he can and can't do. Can he see things before they happen or not? Can he make something that even he can't figure out or know? Without that we're arguing apples and oranges.
Lastly though, it doesn't matter if God is in the argument or not. You can argue logically that free will doesn't exists without making any mention of him (read some of my earlier posts).
Have a good night and I hope all who participated here enjoyed the discussion.
>>402901
>it makes sense that God could create something with a random piece involved.
In ancient cultures people drew lots because God would literally make the random drawing reflect his will
There is nothing that is "random" to God. Random only means "I don't know what it will be," and God knows everything.
>>402916
Well I'm not actually talking about something random. I'm talking about God giving someone agency. Also what is random to people wouldn't be random to God, obviously. But God would institute a "divine randomness" into the equation.
Free will is not an illusion, it is a misunderstanding.
When a person acts, they clearly perceive Agent as the source of that action. There is no explanation for why the mind would fabricate an arbitrary extra step in actions, nor is there an explanation for how it could manage to create something so adamant that it cannot be disbelieved no matter what. There is no doubt that Agent is real.
The people with limited imagination take this indestructible animating force and impose an unnecessary extra condition upon it: the condition that it must be limited to their single body. This now corrupted model demands an additional object to act as a source for the constrained Agent, giving way to the concept of deities.
These arbitrary extra steps can be removed by stating that there is only a single Agent, but the implications of that are not something people can easily accept. They are too accustomed to metaphysical claims having no real roots in reality; too accustomed to matters such as this being something that can be casually handled with no impact. It is in the realm of science, and the power that will come with its exploration will be undeniable.
God has middle knowledge. So God can be sovereign over all things and humans have free will.
>>402677
Catholic Church condemns fideism.
>>402685
aliens > christian god
>>402685
OMG I'm going to hell
>>402483
The problem is that God is supposed to know the future. Yours and everyone else's included, so that must mean that your decisions have already been set.
Even then, wouldn't the uncased cause of making decisions in spite of the deterministic properties of the universe make no sense at all?
The reason these things are problems is because they are logical paradoxes.
>>402690
circular logic to say that anything in the bible can defend itself
>>402483
Not /his/ related.
>>402483
So if he doesn't know what choice they'll make how is he omniscient? Stop holding onto ideals because you have added them to your identity. There is no 'real' you.
