Philosophy Discussion Forums

Londoner wrote: ↑January 13th, 2018, 5:27 amOnce again, the thread is about a paradox. A paradox is a self-contradictory statement, i.e. it says something is both true and false at the same time.

"If God is all-knowing, then how can I have free will?" is the OP question.
It is not a statement, it is a question. Statements can be paradoxical, I didn't know that questions can.
"God/We are all Knowing; we have free-will/choice." That is both true and false.
Nevertheless, 'If God is Omni-', then we cannot have 'free-will'. Simple as that. No paradox involved.
Neither is there paradox in the 'all Knowing' version of Omni-. As I have clearly demonstrated.

One further observation, you mention Occam's Razor (several times). You ought to read about this - carefully - because it doesn't say or imply what you think it does.

I Know the Razor quite well. Please feel free to educate me if I have misused it. Show me how, if you can.
The simplest theory that explains and predicts all the phenomena observed. Simple as that.
If you disagree, feel free...

Namelesss wrote: ↑January 13th, 2018, 6:20 pm "If God is all-knowing, then how can I have free will?" is the OP question.
It is not a statement, it is a question.

It is two statements/propositions, linked. It asks if they can both be true.

Statements can be paradoxical, I didn't know that questions can.

A question is a statement with a question mark at the end; it asks 'is this true'.

Now notice, the first part is conditional. It says 'If God is all-knowing..' So it simply assumes something with that characteristic. It is not making a theological point about what God, if he exists, is like as a matter of fact. It is not about Jehovah or anyone else, it is really about Determinism. 'If the future can be predicted then how can we have free will'.

Just to remind you, my position is that the description 'all-knowing' does not make sense, so we never get onto the 'then how can I have free will?" bit.

"God/We are all Knowing; we have free-will/choice." That is both true and false.
Nevertheless, 'If God is Omni-', then we cannot have 'free-will'. Simple as that. No paradox involved.
Neither is there paradox in the 'all Knowing' version of Omni-. As I have clearly demonstrated.

There is certainly nothing clear in the above, but I am not concerned with your demonstration. My comment was that the term 'all-knowing' does not make sense. As far as I can tell, you do not address my comment as such. Your problem seems to be that I take a different approach to the OP to your own.

I Know the Razor quite well. Please feel free to educate me if I have misused it. Show me how, if you can.
The simplest theory that explains and predicts all the phenomena observed. Simple as that.
If you disagree, feel free...

You insert it for no reason. For example you write:

Occam's Razor requires the simplest theory that answers, describes, and predicts.
Nothing simpler.
Nothing more complicated.

It doesn't 'require' anything. It says that simple theories are better theories, but it doesn't follow that simple theories are more likely to be correct than complicated ones.

The quote above came after:

Nonsense! Aristotle's 'either/or.. true/false.. is an error. There is more and reality cannot be reduced to a t/f proposition. That toxic error has polluted Western thought since!

and before:

To expect Universal Truth to be reduced to an easily digestible 'either/or' (which is false; QM has demonstrated it's fallacy and obsolescence (Good bye Aristotle) and will, eventually, be found fruitless.

I cannot see that the remark on Occam's Razor has anything to do with either of those two remarks. It just seems to be thrown it at random. Which is why I can only guess that you have some esoteric interpretation of it.

The simplest theory that explains and predicts all the phenomena observed. Simple as that.

That isn't Occam's razor. Or at least it is partially Occam's razor but incomplete and a bit confused.

Here is how Wikipedia define it

His principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected or when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.

Londoner wrote: ↑January 15th, 2018, 5:58 am

Namelesss wrote: ↑January 13th, 2018, 6:20 pm "If God is all-knowing, then how can I have free will?" is the OP question.
It is not a statement, it is a question.

It is two statements/propositions, linked. It asks if they can both be true.

No, there is an assumption/assertion (statement), and if the assumption is true, then comes the question.
And the answer is, of course, we cannot.
Despite all this niggling, call it what you like, an Omni- God or Universe or Reality or Nature, they are all the same thing.
I already explained how "ALL Knowing" is possible with no logical inconsistencies.
Even then, that is only one reason that 'free-will/choice' is impossible.
There are many diverse avenues demonstrating the same thing.
I answered the Op question, and will not be lured into endless niggling over question marks and semantics. You either understand what I said or you do not.

Eduk wrote: ↑January 15th, 2018, 6:20 am

The simplest theory that explains and predicts all the phenomena observed. Simple as that.

That isn't Occam's razor. Or at least it is partially Occam's razor but incomplete and a bit confused.

Here is how Wikipedia define it

His principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected or when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.

Yeah, that's what I said.
What's with all this niggling?
I answered the question.

Namelesss wrote: ↑January 15th, 2018, 9:26 pm
No, there is an assumption/assertion (statement), and if the assumption is true, then comes the question.

I referred to that in my post.

I already explained how "ALL Knowing" is possible with no logical inconsistencies.

I understand you believe that.

I answered the Op question, and will not be lured into endless niggling over question marks and semantics. You either understand what I said or you do not.

You are the one who can't let it go. I can, and will.

Londoner wrote: ↑January 16th, 2018, 4:40 am
I understand you believe that.

Why don't you just **** or get off the pot?!
If there is anything in what I offered that you feel capable of refuting, please do so.
Otherwise, just continue like this, sputtering out of sight.

Namelesss wrote: ↑January 17th, 2018, 1:02 am Why don't you just **** or get off the pot?!
If there is anything in what I offered that you feel capable of refuting, please do so.
Otherwise, just continue like this, sputtering out of sight.

This thread is not your property. I'm afraid you will have to put up with my posts, should I continue to make them.

I made my point back at the end of page 3, and people are free to agree or disagree with it. That you personally don't like it isn't the defining judgement you think it is.

I am not bothered about refuting your own contributions because I cannot face trying to disentangle a meaning from them. But again, other people are free to engage with them, if they think it is worth the effort.

Londoner wrote: ↑January 17th, 2018, 8:49 am

Namelesss wrote: ↑January 17th, 2018, 1:02 am Why don't you just **** or get off the pot?!
If there is anything in what I offered that you feel capable of refuting, please do so.
Otherwise, just continue like this, sputtering out of sight.

This thread is not your property. I'm afraid you will have to put up with my posts, should I continue to make them.

I made my point back at the end of page 3, and people are free to agree or disagree with it. That you personally don't like it isn't the defining judgement you think it is.

I am not bothered about refuting your own contributions because I cannot face trying to disentangle a meaning from them. But again, other people are free to engage with them, if they think it is worth the effort.

Good point (at the end of page 3). The idea of omniscience, omnipotence etc were likely invented a very long time ago without very much thought, as an expression of a maximum (as applied to gods, likely invented at the same time). Certainly there are plenty of examples of ancient gods without omniscience and omnipotence, but I digress.

As you point out, there are logic problems with the concepts. True, believers can hide behind the idea that human minds can't understand god-like existence, which is likely true, though that sort of (non)"logic", can be applied to anything and doesn't actually further discussion/understanding of anything.

Kind of reminds me of the Spinal Tap trope of "turning it up to eleven!!".

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 17th, 2018, 2:01 pm Good point (at the end of page 3). The idea of omniscience, omnipotence etc were likely invented a very long time ago without very much thought, as an expression of a maximum (as applied to gods, likely invented at the same time). Certainly there are plenty of examples of ancient gods without omniscience and omnipotence, but I digress.

Quite. They also referred to the Emperor in Constantinople as 'omnipotent', just meaning that there wasn't a co-Emperor - no implications that he was 'all-knowing' or could create stones that he couldn't lift etc.

I know one thing that will always be true. That the world exists. I do not know if the world will exist. Even if it is true, I do not actually know it, I only know it abstractly.
Also, note how I said it "That the world exists." The future scenario is based off of the present tense. It is not really something that happens in the future, but something that's already true. For it to happen in the future, the world will have to exist twice. This is actually a fault in linguistics, saying that I will know whether the world will exist.

If you ate a sandwich, then God can know you ate a sandwich. No one knows your future actions, and there is nothing to know about it. When the future becomes the present, logically you would say "God knew I ate a sandwich."

Your future action doesn't exist until it happens. God doesn't know what doesn't exist because it doesn't exist in the world (duh). If God knew everything, something that doesn't exist wouldn't be "something."

Omniscience is knowing everything in my opinion and something that doesn't exist isn't "something."

If you mean omniscience is knowing everything that can be constructed from abstract thoughts and words, well you have to remember that thoughts can be faulty and linguistics can be off. I have no idea what paradox Londoner is referring to, but I would rather not think about the faults of linguistics. The real world isn't a paradox.

That being said, I do not believe God is omniscient, but that is for another topic.

Kane Jiang wrote: ↑August 8th, 2019, 4:38 pm If you ate a sandwich, then God can know you ate a sandwich. No one knows your future actions, and there is nothing to know about it. When the future becomes the present, logically you would say "God knew I ate a sandwich."

Your future action doesn't exist until it happens. God doesn't know what doesn't exist because it doesn't exist in the world (duh). If God knew everything, something that doesn't exist wouldn't be "something."

Omniscience is knowing everything in my opinion and something that doesn't exist isn't "something."

It's hard to get your head around knowing **everything**, but if you did, then the future might easily be known by extension.

If matter and energy conform to certain rules, and if people do not have free will, but rather react according to similar, if more complex rules, then knowing all now would include knowing the future. If I was about to break on the pool table, would God know that the 14 ball was going to end up in the right side pocket? Presumably he would, if he knew the arrangement of every atom on the table, and in my muscles and in my head, and all these things conformed to known rules. Stretch things a bit, and He should know the winner of the Derby before the gates open, and the winner of the Super Bowl before kickoff.



In fact, the only thing keeping God from knowing the future if he knows the present is the existence of free will. Since you don't think He can know the future, it follows that you must believe in free will. I do, but I don't know if that negates the possibility of God.

Can God make a being so free that He doesn't know what it will do? Maybe... I believe in my own free will but God is still up for grabs.

Earthellism helps solve the concept of free will and God. God is omnipotent only in Heaven, here on earthell God is only omnibenevolent. The last century which gave us World War 1 and World War 2 and the Holocaust and Hiroshima proved free will this does not solve the problem of evil and failed to explain Hitler and the Holocaust. Recently a parent who lost his daughter at Sandy Hooks used the concept of free will to explain why the shooter killed her. Similarly, the Diary of Ann Frank reveals that every one felt Hitler was practicing his free will in killing 6 million innocent people. Therefore the last century proved that the concept of free will does not work to explain the problem of evil. Hitleid earthellism is the best answer for the 21st century. Earthellism explains the only free will we really have is that human beings can commit active suicide whereas no other creatures on this earth can commit active suicide only passive suicide. Human devils here on earthell find ways to torture and murder human beings not using their free will but just acting demonic on innocent human beings. This century we will not blame free will to explain how evil human devils torture and murder us. instead we will use God's love to find and kill the human devils like Hitler and Adam Lanza and Ted Bundy and Osama Bin Laden and the Walmart shooter .

Panzerfaust_60 wrote: ↑January 1st, 2018, 3:45 pm If God told me that tomorrow at exactly 9:30 I will eat a sandwich, is there any way for me to not eat that sandwich?

No, you would have to eat the sandwich at that time and there would be no way for you to not eat the sandwich at that time.

If so, wouldn't that mean God was wrong?
If not, wouldn't that mean I have no free will?

Correct. If an omniscient God exists and knows the future, you have no free will.

If my future action doesn't exist, then how can know it?
If it does exist, then how do I have free will? I can freely make decisions now, in the present. I can't teleport to the past or to the future. If my action already exists, prior my ability to freely make it, then how is it free?

Theists are conflicted about whether omniscient includes foreknowledge. A satisfactory definition of "all-knowing" could mean knowing all facts, or having all knowledge of everything that is. Since future events don't yet exist, not knowing them wouldn't conflict with knowing everything. Unfortunately for theists that subscribe to the Bible, it states several times that God knows what will happen before it happens. As such, a biblical God implies that people have no free will.

Panzerfaust_60

Assuming we have free will- would the existence of an omniscient being mean that we no longer have free will?

Consider this: An advanced alien race with cloaking technology visits earth. They live among us (but they're cloaked/invisible, so we don't know they're here) and are so advanced that they have machines that can determine what every person on earth is going to do before they do it.
Does the existence of the advanced alien race mean we no longer have free will? (I think if we have free will- we have free will- no matter if an advanced race knows what we are going to do or not).