Omniscience vs. Free will

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I've been reading this dumb book my mother gave me, and once again I found this -to me- contradictory statement arguing that god's omniscience doesn't preclude free will.

Perhaps I'm preaching to the choir but unless I'm missing something, omniscience implies knowing the future, thereby suggesting that every supposed "decision" I take now was already contemplated, which by itself would eliminate free will (ie, I never had the chance to take a different decision).

Is that a correct assumption? Is there any other theological (or other) explanation for said assertion?

[Swatopluk]

I think it would be possible to explain it away by dropping the linear concept of time.
Usually we assume that events in the past influence the present and the present influences the future. If this would be true in the reverse too then by observing the effect of future events on the present the future could be deduced.
Another possibility would be that an omniscient being could contemplate every possibility simultaneously (even in a universe not ruled by determinism). In that case that being would also know everything in advance without necessarily limiting the free will of non-omniscient beings.

[Aggie]

If you're looking at time as a single timeline of what happened, maybe it's contradictory, but if you think of it in terms of the many-worlds interpretation it may make more sense.  Actually, omniscience (which I personally have no truck with) makes more sense in those terms:  God can see everything that could have happened based on free will, and it's free will that makes humans particularly interesting to watch, because there's so many more possibilities at play.  I think God would get bored just looking at one comic book for all eternity...


I've always worked on the premise that one has to assume free will in living one's life; if everything is pre-destined, then I'm pre-destined to think I've got free will and there is no harm done in living as if I do, but if I assume that I don't have free will (and I actually do) then I'm limiting myself unnecessarily.


(cross-posted with Swato - same stuff, largely)

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

That is a thoughtful, logical and valid explanation, thanks to you both, although I have never seen it expressed in such way. The consequence would be that if god knows all possible outcomes but there is free will he has no direct control over the universe.

You could argue that knowing the potential outcomes he could subtly move the universe to his will by making adjustments along the way, making us move "according to god's plan". Isn't that a pseudo free will that in reality isn't (he will compensate whatever decision is taken)?

To tell the truth the more I think about it the more disturbing I find the concept.

[Swatopluk]

Any meddling by God could be compared to the actions of other bings with free will. Should I sabotage your car (should you have one), I'd deprive you of its use without diminishing the 'freeness' of your will (just of your actions).

[Aggie]

The flaw I find in the 'god's will' view of the universe and the Judeo-Christian version of God in general is that humans have tried to make God understandable by starting with a human-like god (blame that 'created in his image' codswallop ) and then adding superlatives - he is EVERYWHERE, ALL-KNOWING and ALL-POWERFUL.  Both halves of this perception of God are flawed, IMHO. While I do somewhat subscribe to omnipresence, my perception God is so far from human that omniscience and omnipotence have little meaning.  This isn't a being with thoughts, desires, 'will' and action that we are discussing, at least where I stand.  If there are constraints put on the universe by God, they are in the parameters, not by intervention.

[Swatopluk]

If it is little Jehovah's school project, then likely someone else has set the basic parameters

[Aggie]

Maybe he did it all by himself and that's why he made such a cock-up of it.

[Opsa]

Hey- give Him a break- this may be His first universe, ever! 

My feelings about the Great Everything are more that of an All than an individual human-like form and/or mind. Can an All keep track and judge all that it is? I don't know.

I guess I've always thought of omniscience as all knowing of all that is, and not  necessarily all that will be.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Any meddling by God could be compared to the actions of other bings with free will. Should I sabotage your car (should you have one), I'd deprive you of its use without diminishing the 'freeness' of your will (just of your actions).

Ahh, the demiurge makes it's appearance again... 
---
My main gripe with the whole thing is that theists seem so determined to keep the appearance of business as usual while at the same time struggling to make rational arguments to validate their position.

I would much rather listen to gnostic explanations than the regular butchering of rational arguments that can't stand by themselves.

I guess I've always thought of omniscience as all knowing of all that is, and not  necessarily all that will be.

Omniscience is always philosophically and logically a problem, if I know everything that is to know now, it doesn't take much to forecast what will happen tomorrow, next week, millennial, or a million years. Omniscience is a complicated absolute, and as Aggie and Swato say, if you don't know what's going to happen tomorrow you know all that could happen tomorrow.

I find significantly more plausible a very powerful, very knowledgeable, very old, capable to influence large parts of our universe, being existing and what benevolence means to him is anybody's guess.

[Opsa]

What if this omniscient Being designed it all to be completely unpredictable?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

If it really is completely unpredictable then it cannot be known after the fact, in consequence it would be unknowable, and by existing would transform an omniscient being into an un-scient being.

Remove the absolute and everything is possible.

[Sibling DavidH]

What if this omniscient Being designed it all to be completely unpredictable?

Quantum Theory says he did!  

------------------------------------------------------

What horrifies me is that there used to be - probably still are - Calvinist-style predestinarian puritans walking around in a permanent state of misery because they were convinced they weren't on the 'saved' list.  The theory is one thing, that kind of ignorant fear is another.

[The Meromorph]

Heisenberg.  'nuff said. 'kay? 

[Swatopluk]

One could assume a literal God Of Gaps. There is the theory that space and time themselves are quantized, i.e. discreet not continuous. the best place for an omniscient being would be in those gaps between because thus it could get a static image of everything at any time with enough 'time' to process it all and thinking about th consequences of the current state.

[Griffin NoName]

Does G-d have free will?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

If god doesn't have free will then what would be the difference between him existing or not? He would be a witness of determinism, trapped in a universe he really can't change.

[Aggie]

Does god need to be able to change anything?

I am not of the opinion that God has anything like will, but then again, I am not of the opinion that God exists (or rather that the word 'exist' cannot be suitably applied to God).

I rather do tend to believe that at some point in the history of the universe, beings have/will exist that have (technological) powers to influence the universe in ways that would appear godlike to less advanced species.  I don't think we are terribly far off the necessary technology to re-create most aspects of Moshe's experience of HaShem (who does come across as a definite being in the relevant books of the Old Testament) - a cloaking device would be necessary, but that's not too far away.  I'm sure contradictory examples can be supplied, but that was my overall impression the last time I read it...


IMHO, most atheist scientists would want to see a direct contradiction of established science as proof of God, and then would either declare it bunk or try to find a scientific explanation for it. 

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Does god need to be able to change anything?

If you define god as an omnipotent being (as most theists do) then he should be able to change things.
---
I think we are in agreement on the plausibility of a god-like creature, but my beef is with how the canonical definition is a rational impossibility but at the same time you find believers trying to bend logic to fit their beliefs.

Personally I don't believe in the supernatural, that is, I think that all events have a rational explanation even if that explanation escape us right now, because of the state of our knowledge. Under such view a god-like creature is possible but not an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal and -to top it all- omni-'benevolent' being. Such god is not only nonviable but terribly anthropocentric. 

[Aggie]

Ah, but this is a shortcoming on the behalf of narrow-minded believers, not on God's behalf. You can't hold God accountable for human shortcomings.

unless you believe all that created in his image stuff....  

For the record, I don't think even the Bible supports omni-benevolence (pure wishful thinking on the part of believers, there) - ask Job. 

[Swatopluk]

Quite selectively benevolent for sure

[Opsa]

Good points.

What confounds me is what would be the benefit to believing in predestination? Why would anyone bother to try to be good, improve themselves or change anything for the better? I thought religion was supposed to inspire people to be good. Why bother, if everything is all ready written in stone? Who makes up this stuff? Who does it possibly help?

Sorry for any untaddy content, here.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I don't think the comment is untaddy Opas, just a valid question.

My view is that the predestination argument is the consequence of the view of a deity as an absolute, ie, if god has no bounds he must know the past, the present and the future, he must have no limitations what-so-ever.

I recall now a conversation with a friend who believed in predestination and he argued that what determined our free will was our intention at the time of the action, which had a number of uncomfortable questions hanging like 'what is the intention and will of a murderer predestined to kill?'. To me the argument makes no sense in any shape or form, in fact I'd say that predestination precludes free will, period, end of story, Hitler and Pol Pot and Dick Cheney had no choice but to do the evil things they did and can't be judged guilty of anything because it wasn't possible for them to do anything else.

[stellinacadente]

I have recently came to be interested in the kabbala and one the interesting (and very complicated, beyond my means!) things is how the kabbala sees God and the world...

IN the Tree of life there are several instances of God (El, Eloim etc.), all emanating from the first Intelligence that (supposedly) created all this, Yaveh.

Now the Kabbala, in my understanding, says that Yaveh has created this instances to know himself...and creating this instaces, he created the Universe as we know it...maybe that is the omniscience as it was originally concieved before Christians got a hold on it...

just a mere though...

and my deepest apology to anyone who belongs to Judaism, for possibly butchering the Kabbala beliefes and meaning...not inteded I promise!

[Swatopluk]

There has been a case where a defendant in court (18th or 19th century) claimed innocence becasue of determinism. The judge answered that, if he committed his crime becasue of determinism, then his (the judge's) verdict and the following punishment were natuarlly also detremined, so the defendant had no right to complain.

The usual cheap excuse for predestination vs. fairness is that a 'saved' one will of course behave accordingly. The vulgar capitalist Calivinists just redefine what 'appropriate' is.