By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
timmah on 01 February 2013
Edit Thread
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:

I don't know the answer to this question, I have beliefs and theories, but I just don't know. What else do you want? Your goal is just to get me to acknowledge an absolute that I don't even claim to know or understand so you can prove to me I'm wrong for even believing in God. Why are you so obsessed with that?

You should know the answer and that is my point. If there exists an omniscient being, then by definition all outcomes are known - otherwise there are unknowns and that violates the notion of omniscience (ALL-knowing).

I'm not attempting to disprove God (That's absurd. And for the record, I take no issue in the belief of a God). I am attempting to show you that omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive principles. 

I've also made the point of active (influencing a decision) vs. passive (knowing the decision), and how this does not negate free will. Along with the time and perspective examples, I've alse said that knowing is not the same as influencing, so your conclusion is overly simplistic in my opinion. I'll post an argument along those lines (I'm about to leave the office and don't have time to write an essay right now)...

Your argument is as follows...

  1. A being with free will, given two options A and B, can freely choose between A and B.
  2. God is omniscient (all-knowing).
  3. God knows I will choose A.
  4. God cannot be wrong, since an omniscient being cannot have false knowledge.
  5. From 3 and 4, I will choose A and cannot choose B.
  6. From 1 and 5, omniscience and free will cannot co-exist.

 

"Premises 1 and 2 in your outline above are the main premises to the argument and are not disputed. The Christian worldview argues that every human being is a free moral agent and is capable of making choices simply by exercising their will, not under compulsion or because of instinct. Also, it is a long held doctrine of Christianity that God is all-knowing. The Bible says that God knows "the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10)." For omniscience to be truly knowledgeable it must be correct knowledge, so premise number 4 is also granted.

However, point number 5 is where the logic falters. Those who argue in this manner make the mistake of thinking that because God possesses knowledge about a specific matter, then he has influenced it. That does not follow at all. Just because God can foresee which choice you will make, it does not mean you couldn't still freely choose the other option.

Let me give you an example. I have a five year old son. If I were to leave a chocolate chip cookie on the table about a hour before dinner time and my son was to walk by and see it, I know that he would pick up the cookie and eat it. I did not force him to make that decision. In fact, I don't even have to be in the room at all. I think I know my son well enough, though, to tell you that if I come back into the kitchen the cookie will be gone. His act was made completely free of my influence, but I knew what his actions would be.

In examining the argument, the assumption is made in premise 3 that because God knows I will choose A somehow denies me the choice of B. That is the premise that Christianity rejects. Omniscience and free will are not incompatible and it is a non-sequitor to claim otherwise."

( http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi038.asp#ixzz2Jg49NDxa )



Below is an interesting resource that includes what you're talking about (fatalism), as well as some proposed compatibilist explanations/solutions to this issue by various philosophers.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/#2.1 

There are many different philosophical discussions and arguments on this on both sides. You seem to think yours is the only one with any points. The depth of the material in the above link will go to show you that, like I said, this topic as a whole is a lot deeper than your simplistic conclusion.

EDIT: There are also arguments that, if God does view time like we do (as in your axiom), he does not have to know the future with 100% certainty to be omniscient (omniscient is defined as knowing everything there is to know). In this argument, omniscience does not require knowing the future, because the future does not exist yet, therefore does not fall under the definition of 'everything there IS to know', since the future is not in existence yet in this example. Given that argument of linear time with no other perspective, you could not argue against omniscience (complete knowledge of what is), based on not knowing the future (something that is not yet).