Can an omniscient being exist with a universe that has free will?

An omnipotent god would know with complete certainty what you are going to do in your life. This knowledge isn't in any way go to affect your actions.

Again, I never said it would. The fact that he can know what you will do with complete certainty, relies on the premise that there is a absolute future. An absolute future is the definition of fate.

So if we remove god from the equation, you are still going to do the same actions. Whether or not god exists to know your fate is irrelevant.

So if we remove god from the equation, you are still going to do the same actions. Whether or not god exists to know your fate is irrelevant.

Yes.

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on February 16, 2011, 02:58:26 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 16, 2011, 02:11:54 PM

You are discussing the way god might come to gain his knowledge, not what conditions must be met for such knowledge to be possible.

Yes. Are you asking me to provide reasons why God is omniscient?

No, I am asking for acknowledgment that to hold knowledge of a certain future, a certain future must exist.

Yes, I acknowledge this, but I deny that it automatically invalidates free will.

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on February 16, 2011, 02:28:54 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 16, 2011, 02:33:46 PM

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on February 16, 2011, 02:28:54 PM

The man had the choice to either stay in the room or attempt to leave. He exercised his free will to stay. No problem. Had he tried to leave, only then would his free will have been jeopardised.

The thought experiment is highlighting capability of choice which is why the decision isn't between 'staying or trying to leave'. It is a decision to stay or leave. If leaving is impossible it is not really a choice.

It is a choice, because he chooses to stay! I cannot make this any clearer.

So you contend that it is a choice not to violate the laws of physics? 

Not a fair analogy. The other scenario is logically possible, this isn't.

So if we remove god from the equation, you are still going to do the same actions. Whether or not god exists to know your fate is irrelevant.

How do you know this? It is now possible for me to make either choice. I am no longer forced to choose just one.

Whether or not I am choosing the cornflakes even when not forced to is irrelevant.

Quote from: Fortuna on February 16, 2011, 03:18:57 PM

So if we remove god from the equation, you are still going to do the same actions. Whether or not god exists to know your fate is irrelevant.

How do you know this? It is now possible for me to make either choice. I am no longer forced to choose just one.

Whether or not I am choosing the cornflakes even when not forced to is irrelevant.

God wasn't forcing you to make a choice.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on February 16, 2011, 03:24:36 PM

Quote from: Fortuna on February 16, 2011, 03:18:57 PM

So if we remove god from the equation, you are still going to do the same actions. Whether or not god exists to know your fate is irrelevant.

How do you know this? It is now possible for me to make either choice. I am no longer forced to choose just one.

Whether or not I am choosing the cornflakes even when not forced to is irrelevant.

God wasn't forcing you to make a choice.

The existence of God's omniscience did though. Once again, the fact that he knew what I would do meant that I could not have done otherwise, which means I had no free-will.

Not a fair analogy. The other scenario is logically possible, this isn't.

Do explain.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on February 16, 2011, 01:31:52 PM

quantum uncertainty says that even if you knew everything about a system you would not be able to predict what would happen. therefor being just because god new the past does not mean he would know the future.

Quantum uncertainty doesn't apply to omniscience. I doubt god's alleged ability to know the future is dependent on mathematically deriving it.

the argument is if you know everything about the universe now that does not mean that you know the future. I am demonstrating that omniscience does not mean future knowledge.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 16, 2011, 03:09:41 PM

No, I am asking for acknowledgment that to hold knowledge of a certain future, a certain future must exist.

Yes, I acknowledge this, but I deny that it automatically invalidates free will.

So you believe your adaptation of freewill to be compatible with fate?  

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 16, 2011, 03:09:41 PM

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on February 16, 2011, 02:28:54 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 16, 2011, 02:33:46 PM

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on February 16, 2011, 02:28:54 PM

The man had the choice to either stay in the room or attempt to leave. He exercised his free will to stay. No problem. Had he tried to leave, only then would his free will have been jeopardised.

The thought experiment is highlighting capability of choice which is why the decision isn't between 'staying or trying to leave'. It is a decision to stay or leave. If leaving is impossible it is not really a choice.

It is a choice, because he chooses to stay! I cannot make this any clearer.

So you contend that it is a choice not to violate the laws of physics?  

Not a fair analogy. The other scenario is logically possible, this isn't.

Um, no. It was impossible to leave the room.

Quote from: Fortuna on February 16, 2011, 03:25:18 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on February 16, 2011, 03:24:36 PM

Quote from: Fortuna on February 16, 2011, 03:18:57 PM

So if we remove god from the equation, you are still going to do the same actions. Whether or not god exists to know your fate is irrelevant.

How do you know this? It is now possible for me to make either choice. I am no longer forced to choose just one.

Whether or not I am choosing the cornflakes even when not forced to is irrelevant.

God wasn't forcing you to make a choice.

The existence of God's omniscience did though.

Do explain.

the argument is if you know everything about the universe now that does not mean that you know the future. I am demonstrating that omniscience does not mean future knowledge.

Omniscience by definition, implies knowledge of the future. I think you are restricting his knowledge to one frame of time and relying on his infinite intelligence. I believe the common contention here is that god directly witnesses the future.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on February 16, 2011, 03:25:29 PM

Quote from: Fortuna on February 16, 2011, 03:25:18 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on February 16, 2011, 03:24:36 PM

Quote from: Fortuna on February 16, 2011, 03:18:57 PM

So if we remove god from the equation, you are still going to do the same actions. Whether or not god exists to know your fate is irrelevant.

How do you know this? It is now possible for me to make either choice. I am no longer forced to choose just one.

Whether or not I am choosing the cornflakes even when not forced to is irrelevant.

God wasn't forcing you to make a choice.

The existence of God's omniscience did though.

Do explain.

I have as well as Singy in almost every post in here. I am going to assume that you are nothing but a troll now.

So your adaptation of freewill is compatible with fate? 

Yes.

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on February 16, 2011, 03:22:56 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 16, 2011, 03:09:41 PM

So you contend that it is a choice not to violate the laws of physics? 

Not a fair analogy. The other scenario is logically possible, this isn't.

Um, no. It was impossible to leave the room.

Leaving the room is only physically impossible. It is not beyond the realm of logical possibility.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 16, 2011, 03:26:50 PM

So you believe your adaptation of freewill to be compatible with fate?  

Yes.

If you are fated to do something, how is that freedom?
And, if an inescapable future is not the opposite of freewill, what is?

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 16, 2011, 03:26:50 PM

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on February 16, 2011, 03:22:56 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 16, 2011, 03:09:41 PM

So you contend that it is a choice not to violate the laws of physics?  

Not a fair analogy. The other scenario is logically possible, this isn't.

Um, no. It was impossible to leave the room.

Leaving the room is only physically impossible. It is not beyond the realm of logical possibility.

Physical impossibilities are logically impossible. It is already bound by logic. The difference is that the laws of physics are just more logically fundamental, as opposed to case specific examples.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on February 16, 2011, 03:26:32 PM

the argument is if you know everything about the universe now that does not mean that you know the future. I am demonstrating that omniscience does not mean future knowledge.

Omniscience by definition, implies knowledge of the future. I think you are restricting his knowledge to one frame of time and relying on his infinite intelligence. I believe the common contention here is that god directly witnesses the future.

total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.
therefore if you have something that can't be known, such as the future according to quantum there is no problem. at least with that definition of omniscience.

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on February 16, 2011, 03:40:39 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 16, 2011, 03:26:50 PM

So you believe your adaptation of freewill to be compatible with fate?  

Yes.

If you are fated to do something, how is that freedom?
And, if an inescapable future is not the opposite of freewill, what is?

The opposite of free will is lack of choice, but fate does not preclude choice. Fate is made up of choices.

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on February 16, 2011, 03:40:39 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 16, 2011, 03:26:50 PM

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on February 16, 2011, 03:22:56 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 16, 2011, 03:09:41 PM

So you contend that it is a choice not to violate the laws of physics?  

Not a fair analogy. The other scenario is logically possible, this isn't.

Um, no. It was impossible to leave the room.

Leaving the room is only physically impossible. It is not beyond the realm of logical possibility.

Physical impossibilities are logically impossible. It is already bound by logic. The difference is that the laws of physics are just more logically fundamental, as opposed to case specific examples.

Leaving a locked room is conceivable. Breaking the laws of physics is not. Logic does not allow a gentle gradient of possibilities. Logic is a cliff edge of either/or scenarios.

Logic does not allow a gentle gradient of possibilities. Logic is a cliff edge of either/or scenarios.

Um, yes it does. That is the whole point of thought experiments and possible world.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on February 16, 2011, 04:11:33 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 16, 2011, 03:31:51 PM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on February 16, 2011, 03:26:32 PM

the argument is if you know everything about the universe now that does not mean that you know the future. I am demonstrating that omniscience does not mean future knowledge.

Omniscience by definition, implies knowledge of the future. I think you are restricting his knowledge to one frame of time and relying on his infinite intelligence. I believe the common contention here is that god directly witnesses the future.

total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.
therefore if you have something that can't be known, such as the future according to quantum there is no problem. at least with that definition of omniscience.

Omniscient doesn't necessarily mean "knowing the future." It means "having total knowledge."

Definition: "Having total knowledge."

The technical singularity in science fiction may have total knowledge; but it does not imply that it can predict the lottery.

If we have an omniscient being, then that being would presumably know about events past this point in time. Let us also assume that people that possess free will are inherently random.

This poses a problem. It is similar to the problem of having an inmoveable wall and an unstoppable object. The two simply cannot exist together. If people have free will and are random, then our being cannot know their actions, and is therefore not omniscient. If our being is omniscient, then our actions are predictable, meaning they are determined by solely outside forces and are not random. Therefore, we do not have free will.

Discuss.

The unstoppable force would go around the unmovable object.

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on February 16, 2011, 04:16:40 PM

Logic does not allow a gentle gradient of possibilities. Logic is a cliff edge of either/or scenarios.

Um, yes it does. That is the whole point of thought experiments and possible world.

The whole point of these is to ascertain what is logically possible and what is not. There is no middle ground.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on February 16, 2011, 04:20:02 PM

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on February 16, 2011, 04:16:40 PM

Logic does not allow a gentle gradient of possibilities. Logic is a cliff edge of either/or scenarios.

Um, yes it does. That is the whole point of thought experiments and possible world.

The whole point of these is to ascertain what is logically possible and what is not. There is no middle ground.

But as long as the scenarios are logically consistent, anything you want can happen in them. There being a room in which is impossible to escape from does not contradict this.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 16, 2011, 03:54:03 PM

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on February 16, 2011, 03:40:39 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 16, 2011, 03:26:50 PM

So you believe your adaptation of freewill to be compatible with fate?  

Yes.

If you are fated to do something, how is that freedom?
And, if an inescapable future is not the opposite of freewill, what is?

The opposite of free will is lack of choice, but fate does not preclude choice. Fate is made up of choices.

You skipped my first question and answered the second by negating the current definition.

"The opposite of potato is not potato."
This doesn't mean anything. However, it seems to be dependent on your first assertion, so I will let it go for now.

Leaving a locked room is conceivable. Breaking the laws of physics is not. Logic does not allow a gentle gradient of possibilities. Logic is a cliff edge of either/or scenarios.

Leaving a locked room only seems logically possible because it doesn't advertise all of the information. There are always emergent logical rules and properties based on certain circumstances. There are infinite possible behaviors for the man to follow, none of which open the door if you follow along with them. It's just convoluted enough to make us doubt those rules.

Here's a simplified example: The only way to open a treasure chest is with a key. The key is inside the chest and the chest is closed. Here, it becomes obvious that it is a logical impossibility to open the chest. This isn't a foundational law of physics or a prime principle of logic. It is an emergent logical rule.

...It is a physical impossibility for you to grow wings and fly. The reason why it is physically impossible is because doing so would violate physics.

It makes a difference when you know what the omnipotent being has decided.

Also, Newcomb's Paradox may be of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_Paradox

It makes a difference when you know what the omnipotent being has decided.

Deciding might not be the best term...
But either way, I don't believe anyone is claiming to know the mind of god. 

Quote from: Fortuna on February 16, 2011, 02:06:03 PM

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on February 16, 2011, 02:01:02 PM

Quote from: Fortuna on February 16, 2011, 01:55:17 PM

I think this is a really thin argument. You could say that you have free will, but god still knows what choice you are going to make. I don't see how that would take away from your free will. He isn't interfering with your decision.

It's not about God interfering with your decision, it's about your decision being pre destined that robs you of your freedom.  It basically makes you a puppet of fate from which you cannot escape.

What do you mean pre-destined? You're going to complete a set of actions in your lifetime whether or not someone knows what those actions are. God knowing what you are going to do has no effect on your free-will as long as he doesn't make you do something different.

Lets say on day x God knows that when I have to make the choice between eating Cheerios and eating Cornflakes, I choose to eat cornflakes.

When that day comes along, I have to eat the cornflakes. If I don't, that means that God is not omniscient, becuase he did not know what I was going to do.

I did not have free-will in the matter because I had to eat the cornflakes, it could not have happened any other way.

You are actually going to eat the Raisin Bran.

Ok, while I actually agree with the argument that an omniscient being that knows the future cannot exist in a reality with free will, I just had a thought, what if it's not that this being knows what is going to happen, it just knows everything that possibly could happen

Ok, while I actually agree with the argument that an omniscient being that knows the future cannot exist in a reality with free will, I just had a thought, what if it's not that this being knows what is going to happen, it just knows everything that possibly could happen

If it does not know what I am going to eat for breakfast tomorrow, only my options, is that omniscience?

Quote from: stume on February 17, 2011, 07:15:12 PM

Ok, while I actually agree with the argument that an omniscient being that knows the future cannot exist in a reality with free will, I just had a thought, what if it's not that this being knows what is going to happen, it just knows everything that possibly could happen

If it does not know what I am going to eat for breakfast tomorrow, only my options, is that omniscience?

Ok, it took me about 10 attempts to try wording my thoughts, and the more I think about it, the less it makes sense to me, so I concede that my thought was a completely irrelevant waste of time, sorry. It was only a thought that appeared while reading the thread, then put it's self into a post with little approval from the rest of my being so I don't really care.

ITT: Fortuna trolls everybody.

  I thought the whole point of God was that he makes no sense but you believe in him anyway for no apparent reason?