Omniscience vs. Freewill (was Re: [PLUG-TALK] Re: PLUG-talk Digest, Vol 7, Issue 6)

glen e. p. ropella gepr at tempusdictum.com
Fri Apr 8 23:22:20 UTC 2005


=><=><= "rj" == Russ Johnson <russj at dimstar.net> writes:

rj> A) Free Will is the ability to make a non-predetermined decision.
rj> Predetermined is something that is known, by any entity (such as 
rj> God).

rj> B) God knows all that is, has been, and will be. Since God knows what 
rj> will be, he necessarily will know what your decision on any given 
rj> question will be.

rj> Choose A or B. You can't choose both. They are mutually exclusive.

rj> If A is true, then God can't know what your decision would be. In that 
rj> case, he's not omnipotent.

rj> If B is true, then God knows what your decision will be before you make 
rj> it, and therefor, your decision was predetermined. I.e. no free will.

rj> You defy logic when you insist that both can co-exist. You can't have it 
rj> both ways. Either God is omnipotent or he isn't. If he's omnipotent, 
rj> then you don't have free-will.

I'm not so sure this is right.

First off, we have to clear something up.  Omniscience is "all knowing"
and omnipotence is "all powerful".  So, I'm going to assume you're 
talking about omniscience even though you used the word omnipotence.

To say that the two are mutually exclusive, is to say that they
contradict one another.  And you haven't really shown that a 
contradiction results from making both assumptions.

So, you say, "If A is true, then God can't know what your decision
would be."  Why not?  There are two situations where God could know
your future and that future could still be _chosen_ by you:

  1) Human choice is temporal.  God is trans-temporal.

     In this case, we humans are limited in our ability to sense and
     understand the 22 ... [ahem]... dimensional universe in which we
     sit.  Some of those dimensions _control_ us.  For example, time,
     is a monotonically increasing _parameter_ that dictates our 
     manifestation.  We are time-dependent.  Yesterday I was not the
     same _thing_ I am today.

     God, on the other hand, is independent of time.  He's like 
     Maxwell's equations... he is what he is whether you plug in
     the t-value of yesterday or today.

     So, in this context, we can have freedom of choice.  But, 
     the _impact_ of that choice simply varies with time... And
     God sees us as the entire historical trajectory rather than
     as a coherent entity at a single time point.  So, he knows
     what we did/do/will do... In fact, "did", "do", and "will do"
     are all the same to him.

     (Note that this option means that God cannot _choose_ because he
     is trans-temporal and choice is temporal... This would mean that,
     although omniscient, he wouldn't be omnipotent...  which would
     explain why he periodically incarnates himself in the form of
     "his Son" to go slumming amongst the temporally challenged.  It's
     a common tactic of gods to ride an avatar periodically so they
     can have sex, drink wine, spread wisdom, etc..)

  2) Potential vs. Actual is real and God has infinite inferential
     ability and can know what will happen regardless of the path
     you end up taking.

     In this situation, there is a real (ontologically extant)
     potential space just like there's a real actual space.  So,
     things that might happen are real things to be looked at and
     understood by God.  God could be an infinite Universal Turing
     machine and could follow _all_ the potential outcomes of any
     given decision any piddly little human might make.  So, if I have
     the option of eating bacon, peeing on the floor, or driving to
     the grocery store, God has already played out all 3 options and
     all their infinite consequences.  In that sense, regardless of
     which I choose, he _knows_ what will happen next.  And in that
     sense, he knows everything, including knowing about everything
     that never actually happens.

If I were to believe in an omniscient God, I'd choose option (2),
primarily because I like Wheeler's many worlds idea.

In any case, I think (1) and (2) are sufficient to show that your A
and B are not mutually exclusive.  But, (1) presents immediate
problems with the assumption that God is omnipotent.  But, that
assumption is riddled with other problems, anyway.  Like the simple
idea that if God is omnipotent, then he _can_ create a rock big enough
that he _cannot_ lift.  As a result, I would have to come down on
Russell's side and claim that God set up the system and then sat back
to watch, without interfering too much.  Deism was good enough for our
Founding Fathers; so, it's plenty for me, too.  I don't need my God to
be poking his miracle stick into my life every time I clip my toenails
or vacuum the carpet.

-- 
glen e. p. ropella              =><=                           Hail Eris!
H: 503.630.4505                              http://www.ropella.net/~gepr
M: 971.219.3846                               http://www.tempusdictum.com




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list