r505Matt said:
Thanks =) I like your posts too. For the most part, I agree. I just want to get a little further out and talk about the 'false by meaning' things you bring up. In our world's rules, I completely agree. I'm going to get a little philosophical here but yes, in our perspective, a square circle cannot exist since the meanings of the terms directly clash with each other. But maybe we don't see the full picture. We perceive 3-4 dimensions (3d time to keep it simple) and yet scientists theorize there may be as many as 11 dimensions. Is it not possible within those other 7 dimensions some sort of 'loophole' that could make a square circle exist logically? We only perceive 3-4 dimensions, so we only see 3-4 dimensions of an object, we don't necessarily see the whole picture. Now this idea won't necessarily apply well to the square-circle idea directly, since even with other perceived dimensions, maybe it wouldn't change. Just like how a line is still a line even though we perceive more dimensions than it requires for us to perceive (and I won't even get into cubes and spheres). However, I meant to bring up the idea to apply as a whole to any kind of terms conflict in the manner of the square circle. The square circle is such a good example that I had to use it =) I know this is the basis for refuting some God theories as well, mostly in terms of the traits given. I've used it myself when people try to say God is omnipotent and omniscient and yet those same people believe in free will. I posit that omniscience and free will cannot co-exist. But it may all lie in semantics and the definitions assigned. To me, free will is more than simply the ability to choose your own course of action, but to explain fully requires adding in omniscience. All knowing. A very powerful word, a being who is omniscient is ALL knowing. I cannot stress that all part enough. If God is all knowing, he knows all of the past, all of the present, and all of the possible futures. Just the mere fact that he knows any future you could possibly act on disproves the concept of free will for me. I won't leave it at that. Most people think free will just means there is no set future, but I don't believe that to be the case. An omniscient and omnipotent creature would be able to foresee every infinte possibility. Just his or her or its mere knowing and understanding of every possible choice would rule out free will possibility existing. At that point, your not choosing your own path, your still walking along a predetermined path. Rather, one of infinite possible predetermined path, but the true choice is beyond you. Lastly and most importantly, if God is omniscient and omnipotent, not only does God then see every possibilty, but God will still know EXACTLY which path will be taken. That's still part of the all knowing. If God doesn't know which path will be taken, then God is not all knowing and none of this really matters. It took a while to lead up to this most important part, but I had to lead up to it. Omniscience and free will cannot co-exist. Unless, of course, in those other 7 unknown dimensions, there may lie a loophole. So I'm open to the possibility of such a thing, but at this time, just as I accept there cannot be a square circle, omniscience and free will cannot co-exist. I went a little far out there but I brought it back in the end =P |
With extra-dimensions, there is always the possibility that we do not have the whole picture, but you don't really need extra-dimensions to recognize this point. There was a great example I was reading in a book addressing the problem of evil that emphasized this point. Imaginge you are standing outside an empty garage (completely empty- just walls, floor, air molecules- hopefully you get the point). Someone asks you whether there is a dog in the garage. You would feel justified in saying there is no dog. The person then asks you whether there are any fleas in the garage. In reponse to this question, you don't feel justified in saying there are no fleas because your frame of observation is not exact enough to make the claim.
You get the same results with extra-dimensions, especially given that some dimensions are posited to be so small that they are beyond human observation. There might be some celestial unicorn galloping around in the 11th dimension, but we just can't see it (unlikely, but possible). I don't know if these examples directly apply to a square-circle though, particularly because the dimension would actually need to change the meaning of the terms. Point being, a square-circle is a logical contradiction.
Now, onto foreknowledge and free will. The problem gets a lot of discussion. To play devil's advocate, there are a number of responses. First, there is a difference between saying someone knows that x will happen, and saying that someone causes x to happen. God could know that some human will make a choice, but this does not mean he is causing the person to make this choice. God's omniscience allows him to know what action I will take, but the actual action of making that choice is still made by me. However, this argument is not conducive with what we generally think of as free-will because there really are no other options. As you noted, we cannot go against God's knowledge without sacrificing his omnisicience.
The other response is that God does not know our future actions, but this does not eliminate God's omniscience because there is no knowledge of the future, at least where free will is concerned. Knowledge requires that there is a way to test whether the claim corresponds with reality, but there is no reality to test the claim because the claim depends on some as-yet unobserved state of the universe. This response makes more sense to me although it would require that God's timelessness (eternal viewpoint) be denied.
