How God could have free will if he is omniscient?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Free will is the ability to do things without being caused by anything else. You are the cause of your actions, nothing causes you to perform those actions. In this sense, God has free will. There is no external force outside of him pushing him to eternally will the existence of universe. He does this of his own accord.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
Read it. The guy who is going to die has foreknowledge of his death and has options about how to face it.
Click to expand...
What type of options he has?
CHRISTINE77 said:
My point is that for every scenario we have options no matter how limited they are.
Click to expand...
That is not true. There are situations with one obligatory option.
CHRISTINE77 said:
Why are you putting all these conditions on foreknowledge and free will? Because you want them to fit **your **theory. Not good science Bahman.
Click to expand...
That is not true. I am just looking for a situation that my theory is applicable.
 
YosefYosep said:
Free will is the ability to do things without being caused by anything else.

You are the cause of your actions, nothing causes you to perform those actions. In this sense, God has free will. There is no external force outside of him pushing him to eternally will the existence of universe. He does this of his own accord.
Click to expand...
That is impossible (bold part). Can you please give one example?
 
Bahman said:
So free will is random concept?
Click to expand...
I would say this quote is an example of a random concept. It does not mean much, arising not from any objective truth.
Purposely stated, but nonetheless random and having nothing to do with the comment to which it was meant to respond.
In a random universe everything just happens, the illusion of order simply part of the chaos. A mechanized universe in which things just happen with no rhyme or reason, is ultimately a random event.
Then there is reality which includes purpose and the knowledge of such.
 
Bahman said:
So free will is random concept?
Click to expand...
No it merely gives an example of something you stated was impossible, (a choice to act without being influenced from outside of ones self.) the person could have just as well have kissed someone or merely strolled through the crowd humming a tune that they were making up.
 
Aloysium said:
I would say this quote is an example of a random concept. It does not mean much, arising not from any objective truth.
Purposely stated, but nonetheless random and having nothing to do with the comment to which it was meant to respond.
In a random universe everything just happens, the illusion of order simply part of the chaos. A mechanized universe in which things just happen with no rhyme or reason, is ultimately a random event.
Then there is reality which includes purpose and the knowledge of such.
Click to expand...
It was very much directed to the point that it is not impossible for one to act without being forced to through an outside force. One does not have to be directed from an outside force in order to exercise free will.

Note that the concept of free will discussed here is not the Christian concept of free will, which is the freedom to choose to do the will of God in ones life or to not.
 
Bahman said:
That is impossible (bold part). Can you please give one example?
Click to expand...
You asking for one example is an example. You chose to freely to ask for an example. Nothing caused you to do it. Sure, you could say that your curiosity caused you ask for an example, but it’s entirely possible that you could have chose otherwise. You could have chose not to have asked for an example. It’s not like someone forced you to ask for an example.

If you believe you were predetermined to ask for an example then you believe in determinism, and therefore don’t believe in free will. At best you would think free will is illusory, and that all of our choices are ultimately determined for us. In fact, if you do believe that all of our choices are not our own but rather caused by other things, then there is no such thing as choice.
 
DCNBILL said:
No it merely gives an example of something you stated was impossible, (a choice to act without being influenced from outside of ones self.) the person could have just as well have kissed someone or merely strolled through the crowd humming a tune that they were making up.
Click to expand...
Exactly, it’s not like he was determined to slap that person. He could have chose otherwise.
 
DCNBILL said:
No it merely gives an example of something you stated was impossible, (a choice to act without being influenced from outside of ones self.) the person could have just as well have kissed someone or merely strolled through the crowd humming a tune that they were making up.
Click to expand...
Things just pop up inside your conscious mind randomly or they are caused by collective mind, unconscious mind. I don’t know any other option. Do you?
 
YosefYosep said:
You asking for one example is an example. You chose to freely to ask for an example. Nothing caused you to do it. Sure, you could say that your curiosity caused you ask for an example, but it’s entirely possible that you could have chose otherwise. You could have chose not to have asked for an example. It’s not like someone forced you to ask for an example.
Click to expand...
This is off topic but anyhow. I of course ask for example out of curiosity.
YosefYosep said:
If you believe you were predetermined to ask for an example then you believe in determinism, and therefore don’t believe in free will. At best you would think free will is illusory, and that all of our choices are ultimately determined for us. In fact, if you do believe that all of our choices are not our own but rather caused by other things, then there is no such thing as choice.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that we are predetermined. We choose from a set of prioritized options.
 
Bahman said:
Collective mind is the part of mind that all experience of your life gather there. Any sort of thought that pops up to your conscious mind come from there.
Click to expand...
So it is self and not something exterior to a person.
 
Bahman said:
This is off topic but anyhow. I of course ask for example out of curiosity.

I don’t think that we are predetermined. We choose from a set of prioritized options.
Click to expand...
Free will isn’t reducible to the ability to choose either A or B. Rather, in order to believe you have the ability to choose either A or B, you must presume that you can freely choose either one and aren’t determined by anything external to you to make this choice. In other words, in order to say that you have the ability to choose A or B, you must assume that choice exists, and that you’re not predetermined by anything other than yourself.

So what is essential to free will is agency–that is, the ability to do something without being caused to do it by any external determinants. It is the ability to perform an action without the action being caused by anything other than oneself.

Now if you reject this, saying that that this condition isn’t necessary for free will, then you must show how free will is compatible with determinism (which says our choices are ultimately predetermined by external causal determinants in a causal chain). Under this view there is no agency because all of our choices are determined by long, blind, causal chains. In fact, on determinism there is no such thing as choice.

If you deny that what is essential to free will is the ability to perform an action without the action being caused by anything other than oneself, then you will inevitably have to assume that all choice is deterministic. Many philosophers will say it’s impossible to have free will be compatible with determinism. The two oppose each other. You can’t have deterministic free will anymore than you can have a square circle. It’s either one or the other.

Let’s say, however, that we don’t accept determinism and think free will exists. Does God have free will then? Well in order to have free will his actions can’t be caused by anything other than himself. Now you could say his omniscience determines his choices (notice that I’m assuming your temporal version of God for the sake of argument). Well is his omniscience an external cause? No, it is part of his nature, which means he is still the cause of his own actions.

Now you may object and say his omniscience is an external determinant (which is obviously absurd). This entire idea, however, of omniscience causing future choices can be show to be false, because omniscience doesn’t cause anything. Omniscience is the ability to know all things–knowing is an action which grasps reality, it doesn’t determine it. Knowing never determines reality. This can be demonstrated by common sense–I know I will die one day, yet my knowing of my eventual death doesn’t determine my death. So in the same sense, God’s knowing of his choices doesn’t determine his choices.
 
YosefYosep said:
Free will isn’t reducible to the ability to choose either A or B. Rather, in order to believe you have the ability to choose either A or B, you must presume that you can freely choose either one and aren’t determined by anything external to you to make this choice. In other words, in order to say that you have the ability to choose A or B, you must assume that choice exists, and that you’re not predetermined by anything other than yourself.

So what is essential to free will is agency–that is, the ability to do something without being caused to do it by any external determinants. It is the ability to perform an action without the action being caused by anything other than oneself.

Now if you reject this, saying that that this condition isn’t necessary for free will, then you must show how free will is compatible with determinism (which says our choices are ultimately predetermined by external causal determinants in a causal chain). Under this view there is no agency because all of our choices are determined by long, blind, causal chains. In fact, on determinism there is no such thing as choice.

If you deny that what is essential to free will is the ability to perform an action without the action being caused by anything other than oneself, then you will inevitably have to assume that all choice is deterministic. Many philosophers will say it’s impossible to have free will be compatible with determinism. The two oppose each other. You can’t have deterministic free will anymore than you can have a square circle. It’s either one or the other.

Let’s say, however, that we don’t accept determinism and think free will exists. Does God have free will then? Well in order to have free will his actions can’t be caused by anything other than himself. Now you could say his omniscience determines his choices (notice that I’m assuming your temporal version of God for the sake of argument). Well is his omniscience an external cause? No, it is part of his nature, which means he is still the cause of his own actions.

Now you may object and say his omniscience is an external determinant (which is obviously absurd). This entire idea, however, of omniscience causing future choices can be show to be false, because omniscience doesn’t cause anything. Omniscience is the ability to know all things–knowing is an action which grasps reality, it doesn’t determine it. Knowing never determines reality. This can be demonstrated by common sense–I know I will die one day, yet my knowing of my eventual death doesn’t determine my death. So in the same sense, God’s knowing of his choices doesn’t determine his choices.
Click to expand...
Where that argument falls apart is when you add in the creative ability. Omniscience+ Creative Power cannot equal free will for the created, especially when you add in omnipotence. Creation, with infallible knowledge of all future events, equals causation.

John
 
YosefYosep said:
Free will isn’t reducible to the ability to choose either A or B. Rather, in order to believe you have the ability to choose either A or B, you must presume that you can freely choose either one and aren’t determined by anything external to you to make this choice. In other words, in order to say that you have the ability to choose A or B, you must assume that choice exists, and that you’re not predetermined by anything other than yourself.

So what is essential to free will is agency–that is, the ability to do something without being caused to do it by any external determinants. It is the ability to perform an action without the action being caused by anything other than oneself.

Now if you reject this, saying that that this condition isn’t necessary for free will, then you must show how free will is compatible with determinism (which says our choices are ultimately predetermined by external causal determinants in a causal chain). Under this view there is no agency because all of our choices are determined by long, blind, causal chains. In fact, on determinism there is no such thing as choice.

If you deny that what is essential to free will is the ability to perform an action without the action being caused by anything other than oneself, then you will inevitably have to assume that all choice is deterministic. Many philosophers will say it’s impossible to have free will be compatible with determinism. The two oppose each other. You can’t have deterministic free will anymore than you can have a square circle. It’s either one or the other.

Let’s say, however, that we don’t accept determinism and think free will exists. Does God have free will then? Well in order to have free will his actions can’t be caused by anything other than himself. Now you could say his omniscience determines his choices (notice that I’m assuming your temporal version of God for the sake of argument). Well is his omniscience an external cause? No, it is part of his nature, which means he is still the cause of his own actions.

Now you may object and say his omniscience is an external determinant (which is obviously absurd). This entire idea, however, of omniscience causing future choices can be show to be false, because omniscience doesn’t cause anything. Omniscience is the ability to know all things–knowing is an action which grasps reality, it doesn’t determine it. Knowing never determines reality. This can be demonstrated by common sense–I know I will die one day, yet my knowing of my eventual death doesn’t determine my death. So in the same sense, God’s knowing of his choices doesn’t determine his choices.
Click to expand...
I was not saying that foreknowledge can cause. I was arguing that there exist always a tension between foreknowledge and decision when you have foreknowledge on any situation. I mean your foreknowledge can not be always false when you are deciding since foreknowledge carries a truth value otherwise you have not foreknowledge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top