Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Eduk]

Oh and by the way when I say I believe reasonable things. This does not mean that I assume that what I believe is reasonable. I mean I want to believe reasonable things not I want what I believe to be reasonable. So if a belief is shown to be unreasonable that is actually a good thing because I can then stop believing in it.
Now you could argue that my belief that I want to believe reasonable things is itself immune from criticism. And I must admit that this is where belief becomes philosophically axiomatic. Or at the least beyond my means to prove. I could for example point at increased survivability but then you have to make the assumption that survival was a good thing. Something which I think philosophically I can't do.

[Robert-Nielsen]

If God is all-knowing, then how can I have free will?

This answer correlates with my earlier post under Philosophy of Religion, Theism, and Mythology - Why did God create the world and man? In the explanation below, it is assumed that a human being has a Soul or consists of a Spirit, which is capable of deciding certain paths to follow in life. The really important ones determine whether the Spirit (vibration) will come closer to or further away from the Supreme Power (God). Excerpts taken from the Glossary of, God Reveals the Mystery of Creation

FREE WILL
A freedom first granted by the Supreme Power to Its smaller replica, which was subdivided to become Its companion. Granting free will was determined to be essential by the Advisory Centers created earlier. They advised that anything with intelligence, but without free will would not be capable of expressing their own truthful independent happiness as they encountered events accomplished by the Supreme Power. Without free will, their expressions would only mirror what the Supreme Power thought, and thereby negate the advantage of It having a companion that could truly convey opinions that were true, and share in any happiness, disappointment, glee or despair experienced as they performed one theoretical experiment after another, resulting in creation of material universes. Later free will would allow thoughts to form an emotional state known as love. Thereafter, all creations, consisting of parts of the Supreme Power, or a sub-division of It, would be endowed with free will. Once given, free will cannot be revoked, and giving it does not imply that the recipient must or will succumb to the will of the Supreme Power, or any of Its subdivided companions, or of any subdivided companions they created, ad infinitum.

Answer - Free Will was granted to satisfy the Supreme Power that Its companion would truly express "truth" about Its actions in creating All that was or that could ever be. Circumstances followed that that endowment eventually was given to other creations, which were similar to Its companion, but in the form of finite material entities. Those entities possess Souls consisting of Spirit, instead of the "theoretical" smaller duplicate copies of It, which consist of Mind Force and the One Single Highest Vibration, (Pure Energy). The material entities pass through phases, which the Supreme Power hopes will allow their Spirit to gain in higher and higher vibrational frequency to match that of Mind Force, and return to It and Its companions. The determining factor for entities to make gains is to emulate what the Supreme Power would do in each new situation when choosing the proper use of Free Will. If an entity takes a path which results in self-aggrandizement, in lieu of one that raises the vibrational levels of others, that decision reduces the vibrational level of the entity. On the other hand, if the path chosen benefits others, the vibrational level increases. The choices of entities, for or against detrimental, or beneficial paths, determine its progress toward existing with the Supreme Power and enjoying experiences with It and Its companions. Rarely is a single material existence sufficient for such progress. Fortunately, the Spirit vibrations remain static in a spiritual state, and will inhabit new material entities, but without recall of previous existences, and eventually, the use of Free Will allows one to gain or lose much. The process continues until the Spirit reaches the level of Mind Force, or until the Law of Reconversion takes effect. (See Law of Reconversion).

THOUGHT
The result of specialized theoretical centers interacting with each other and making theoretical determinations, which are further saved or cataloged in archives, and may be accessed, modified and assembled into thought forms, or ideas. In this form, thought is dormant. When thought is stimulated it is forced into action, which is the major cause of manifestation. Initially, the use of thought by the Supreme Power took much energy. Later after the design of advanced Advisory Centers, the use of thought became much easier.

[Eduk]

How is that an answer to the OP's question?

[LuckyR]

The OP is a true paradox. Not a god killing paradox, but a true one. But as many have pointed out, since the OP is so specific and narrow, there are several ways of resolving the paradox and preserving the idea of gods.

It isn't that the question is a paradox, it is based on ignorance and various unfounded (and erroneous) assumptions.
It is sloppy thinking.

Then as a clear thinker you should have no trouble pointing them out.

[Namelesss]

It isn't that the question is a paradox, it is based on ignorance and various unfounded (and erroneous) assumptions.
It is sloppy thinking.

Then as a clear thinker you should have no trouble pointing them out.

The most blatant is the assumption of 'free-will/choice' in the question. An assumption that, on critical examination, can be shown to be impossible (as commonly conceived).
Thus, the mentioned 'ignorance'. If you Knew that 'free-will/choice' is impossible, the question becomes meaningless, the answer within the question.

If God/We Are all Knowing, then 'free-will/choice' is impossible.
So, with such conflicting info, does logic trump the sensual info (thoughts/ego/feelings of 'free-will/choice')?

[SimpleGuy]

You should reformulate it.

If there is an all-knowing god, how does it come, that i perceive my own feelings as a free will. How does it come, that a free will is a more or less preferred evolutionary construction. The normal behaviour would be possible, if one would feel constantly remote-controlled , even if this is not the
case, via an external logic. This does not mean, that this external logic does exist. One could perceive one's own actions as commanded from the outside without beeing the case. Why do we feel, in our own body a free will, where we could feel our own superconsciousness as some kind of remote control ? This would be a better imposed question.

[Maldon007]

So this may have been said, if so, sorry. I read some of the posts but not all, it's a short theory anyway, so no harm.

If God is all knowing, the the way a time traveler might know the outcome of the upcoming Superbowl, all free will is still in play. He knows what you and I will do based on his temporal superposition, not on controling our actions... I think that's how it goes. Again, sorry if restating the obvious.

[Namelesss]

If there is an all-knowing god, how does it come, that i perceive my own feelings as a free will.

All Knowing means experiencing all that exists, all that can be Known.
We perceive the thoughts/feelings passing by our telescope of awareness/Consciousness. Thus part of the 'all Knowing' is Knowing the egoic 'feeling' of 'free-will/choice'.
We/God also Knows that it is only a 'feeling/thought/ego', and doesn't exist beyond that schizophrenic parameter.

How does it come, that a free will is a more or less preferred evolutionary construction.

How does it come that you make unsupported assumptions and build upon that with rickety conclusions, such as; " a free will is a more or less preferred evolutionary construction."

The normal behaviour would be possible, if one would feel constantly remote-controlled , even if this is not the
case, via an external logic.

All 'meaning', all 'logic' exists in the thoughts/ego of the beholder! What, exactly, is 'external logic'?
Are you feeling 'remote controlled' now? This moment, like any, is inevitable!

This does not mean, that this external logic does exist. One could perceive one's own actions as commanded from the outside without beeing the case. Why do we feel, in our own body a free will, where we could feel our own superconsciousness as some kind of remote control ? This would be a better imposed question.

The question 'why' is meaningless.
We feel the feelings/thoughts that appear before our unique momentary telescope of awareness.
No 'why', just 'is'! All 'whys' are a matter of Perspective of the beholder.
Ultimately, any 'why' is completely answered in the sum total of all answered 'whys'.
This moment is as it is as a feature of the Universe perceived by your unique Perspective. As is this moment. And this moment.
We do not affect anything, we perceive what inevitably, is! *__-

[LuckyR]

Then as a clear thinker you should have no trouble pointing them out.

The most blatant is the assumption of 'free-will/choice' in the question. An assumption that, on critical examination, can be shown to be impossible (as commonly conceived).
Thus, the mentioned 'ignorance'. If you Knew that 'free-will/choice' is impossible, the question becomes meaningless, the answer within the question.

If God/We Are all Knowing, then 'free-will/choice' is impossible.
So, with such conflicting info, does logic trump the sensual info (thoughts/ego/feelings of 'free-will/choice')?

Sure, anyone can "show" that free will is false (by regurgitating the writings of a philosopher who doesn't believe in it), just as anyone can refute that position by quoting writings that support it. That's why free will vs determination is considered a debate.

Is that all you've got?

[SimpleGuy]

OK. let's reformulate it. You do know that some shizophrenic people feel remote-controlled and an external voice is giving even sometimes commands.
This is for everybody else seen as a mental illness but , what if a normal behaviour to the ouside is not in need of an i as a personality. Were talking right about the imposed question. If God is all-knowing, then how can I have a free will ? ---> So the free will is even for yourself (for example if you're mentally ill, or a drug addict) not always the driving force. How does God's all knowingness come into play. Even if god is all knowing , this would have the effect, that if something like god would have ever existed , it would be somekind of superego of the believer. Example: You know some prophets, had direct commands from god. In Exodus, 3 is standing:

Then he said, "Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground." 6 And he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."

So god plays the role of a superego for the believer. If this entity would have ever existed, people who have personality disorders would have had either problems ( then god is for you a sound superego) to understand him and would have no free will, or if you interpretate god in a vice version god would be the reason of personality disorders and you have personality disorders just because you believe in him.

So you see, the problem is, that the ancient defintion of god, gives you commands to follow, which are not coming you for your own perception.
Free will and god are therefore two distinct themes.

[SimpleGuy]

Even more, Gods own definition in the bible for moses made it possible to be for otherperson god by remote controlling their actions.
Lets look at Exodus 7 of the bible:

Then the Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. 2 You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country.

So you see: God makes sometimes free will totally impossible.

[SimpleGuy]

But at least this may seem for a modern day psychologist who simply just believes in science a personality disorder.

[Namelesss]

But at least this may seem for a modern day psychologist who simply just believes in science a personality disorder.

What if the 'definition' of God is simply 'Omni-'?
That seems to be the definition that is left when we eliminate all the local window dressings and local myths and human psychology... what's left, and non-refutable, is that God must be Omni-.
Omni- if examined, means One! ALL inclusive.
Means that the Universe is God Knowing OurSelf!
Means that every moment of Universal existence already exists, inevitably, and all we do is to uniquely experience/Know that bit of 'Self!' that passes before us.
No motion, no doing, no choosing, no changing a thing, ever, just Universal Self Knowledge. Each unique moment. A moment is a unit of perception, a 'percept'. A unique Perspective of Self.
No puppeteers, we are all Pinocchio imagining ourselves to be real little boys.
We are, but only in the ego, imagination, appearances.
One moment we see ourself in one position, from another Perspective, from another. All One (Truth/Reality, all inclusive), just different Perspectives.

That 'separation' perceived between God and man, as we imagine it, is schizophrenia, believing the lies of thought/ego, believing 'appearances'.
Schizophrenia; the fragmentation of that which is One! *__-
Just saying, what if... *__-

[SimpleGuy]

But how does it come? If somebody believes in god , this should have a reason. So some sort of sign or communication must be present: O.K:?
How would you somehow devide if this sign is just an upcoming psychological problem or a sign from god. Would you simple communicate with
different believers? Even in this case , psychologists could talk about a mass-psychosis of a group. How do you define metally healthy and ill, if
there is a communication or at least a sign from God in some way. If there is no communication, does this belief simply comes from a priest who
says that god is thinking this way, but this is just a psychological projection of your god terminology to priest. All this can have hazardous effects to mental health , this is known to be proven for me.

[Londoner]

All Knowing means experiencing all that exists, all that can be Known.

I think the phrase is meaningless, however you try to explain it.

For example, if I have an experience of something, it is only 'an' experience. 'All knowing' would require me to have all possible experiences simultaneously, but that would be the same as having no experience. (If my experience was 'all possible experiences', if you asked me ' So is it this experience?' and named something, my answer would always be 'no'.)

Likewise with 'know'. If I know everything, then I would know nothing in particular. It is like asking 'What would something look like if viewed from everywhere?' It makes no sense because 'look' like 'experience' and 'know' implies a particular perspective, so to link it to 'all' or 'everywhere' is self-contradictory.

If somebody could come up with a coherent explanation of what 'all knowing' is supposed to mean - then we could move onto how it would be compatible with whatever 'free will' is supposed to mean.