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

[Russ Johnson]

glen e. p. ropella wrote:

>=><=><= "rj" == Russ Johnson <russj at dimstar.net> writes:
>
>rj> If he's seeing the whole lifetime (regardless of wether he's in or out 
>rj> of time), then my life is predetermined.  i.e. no freewill.
>
>No.  That's not the case.  Why do you keep repeating yourself?
>  
>
Uhm, maybe you are too.

>I'll try again... Last time.  Freewill is a time-dependent concept.
>In order to have and participate in _indeterminate_ decision making,
>you must be a time-dependent process.  If you have options for what
>_will_ happen in the future, then you have freewill.
>  
>
The only way that could happen is if this omniscient being could see all 
possible timelines, all at once. Otherwise, there's only one timeline, 
and I have to follow said timeline, and my choices are predetermined.

As I've stated previously, I don't think that theory holds water. I 
don't believe there are multiple timelines. Multiple timelines is a cop 
out.

I could have the illusion of decision making, but if God can see my 
whole life then my decisions have been made already. From His 
perspective. Oh what a boring existance that would be, since He already 
knows what my life will be like.

>For a process (e.g. God) that is not time-dependent, having knowledge
>of what will (1) or could (2) happen does not contradict the freewill
>options of the time-dependent processes She observes.  By contrasting
>God's omniscience and a human's freewill, you're comparing apples and
>oranges.  They are _totally_ different.
>  
>
If it's only a "could", then he's not omniscient. He either knows or He 
doesn't. If He knows, then I can't decide differently than what He 
knows. How is that not mutually exclusive?

It makes no difference if God is timeless or not. The fact remains that 
if God can see the whole of my lifetime, and I can't make changes to 
what he sees, then free-will is non-existant.

>Time independent processes are not constrained by time-dependent
>variables like the number of options at any given point.  Likewise,
>time-dependent processes _are_ limited by time-dependent variables.
>
>God's omnisicence does not contradict a human's freewill.
>  
>
Yes. It does. You stating that it doesn't does not make it so.

>Now, a human's omniscience would contradict a human's freewill.  Or,
>God's omniscience would contradict God's freewill.  But, that's not
>what you're talking about.  You're relating time-dependent humans to
>time-independent God.  Hence you haven't demonstrated any such
>contradiction.
>  
>
It makes no difference WHO is omniscient. We're still talking about 
knowing everything, all at once. Past, future, present, it's all 
irrelevant to an omniscient being. So, the mear existance of this 
omniscient being negates free will.

Now, you say God has no freewill? I think some theologians would argue 
with you on that one.

Besides, making a human omniscient would make them no longer human, in 
my opinion.

>Please don't just repeat yourself this time.  Make some sort of effort
>to actually demonstrate the contradiction you claim.
>  
>
I can't help that you can not see the simple logic in my argument.

Russ