Why do some believe these characteristics of a Creator?

[timmah]

dsgrue3 said:

timmah said:

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.

Nope, I have not once said an omniscient being influences your decisions. 

From 1-4 we can logically deduce 5 from your example. You have proven it, then attempted to call the logic faulty. The only way for faulty logic to occur is with false premises. None of those premises are false (or at least you did not address them, even admitted 1,2, and 4.) So it 3 false? Because 1, 2, and 4 are not false.

Slight Modifications:

1. Let W represent a human with free will. 

2. Let G represent an omniscient being.

3. Let C represent a function of choice.

4. W implies C(A,B). 

5. G implies C(A,B) = B. 

6. W implies B by (5).

I have shown that given 1-5, 6 is true. 

You choice is not influenced by an omniscient being, but it is known by him - determinism. Can determinism and free will coexist? Absolutely not.

Simply: God sees a deterministic path which is unalterable. He sees outcome, direction, predetermination. 

               You see a choice.

Free Will from the perspective of Omniscience is violated. Free Will from the perspective of a human is not violated.

In your example of linear time, God does not have to know the future with certainty to be omniscient, since the future does not exist yet (and omniscience is complete knowledge of what IS).

Basically, with the axiom of a non-linear view of time, there are ways around this paradox. With the axiom of God haveing a linear view of time (as you propose), he does not have to know the future to be omniscient, since the future doesn't exist yet (omniscience is the complete knowledge of what is, so does not necessarily include the future if the view of time is linear).

EDIT: You're confusing Anterograde Omniscience (theoretical knowledge of the future) with the overall concept of Omniscience (the complete knowledge of what is). The concept of omniscience also includes discussions of Inherent Omniscience (the CAPACITY to know everything that can be known), or total omniscience (the actual knowledge of everything that can be known), but does not have to include Anterograde Omniscience by definition. Also, to define omniscience you would then have to specify what can be known. With a linear view of time, it could be argued the future cannot be known since it does not exist, which is why there is active debate as to whether the bible describes Anterograde omniscience or not. Many who believe in or argue for Anterograde Omniscience go into the discussion of the perspective of time and how that could result in God knowing the future, as well as whether or not that would negate choice (as you said above, it could appear to negate choice from one perspective, but not another).