Does an Omniscient Creator Lead to Fatalism?

[Sparko]

Well you can...assuming he exists...because he is deemed omniscient. He supposedly knew even before he created you what you would decide at any given point in time.

So? You still did it of your own free will choice.

Because I made the choice freely. Knowing is not controlling.

[Sparko]

I just answered this. Yes. And if you change your mind and become a Christian, that will align with his plan too.

[JimL]

I just answered this. Yes. And if you change your mind and become a Christian, that will align with his plan too.

And if you don't change your mind and remain an athiest that will align, and if you decide to become a Muslim that will align, and if you decide to worship the flying spaghetti monster, that will align with gods plan. So silly you are Sparko. If no matter what one chooses to do, aligns with what god intended, then it's not a frree choice, since gods intent would precede the choosers choice.

[Sparko]

And if you don't change your mind and remain an athiest that will align, and if you decide to become a Muslim that will align, and if you decide to worship the flying spaghetti monster, that will align with gods plan. So silly you are Sparko. If no matter what one chooses to do, aligns with what god intended, then it's not a frree choice, since gods intent would precede the choosers choice.

Of course it is free will. You do what you want. And if you want to do something else, you can do that too.

[JimL]

Of course it is free will. You do what you want. And if you want to do something else, you can do that too.

No you can't. If the creators intent precedes the creations choice, then whether the creation wants to do something or not, even that wanting is not a free choice. If the intent of the creator precedes the desire and choice of the created then the desires and choices of the created were engineered, not free. A creators plans are engineered, not willy nilly, which is why the results align with the intent.

[carpedm9587]

So? You still did it of your own free will choice.

Because I made the choice freely. Knowing is not controlling.

This philosophy just makes my head ache. Assuming the presuppositions behind the position, right now, at this moment a god exists that knows exactly what I am going to choose tomorrow. Even granting that knowing is not controlling, there is a problem. Tomorrow, if I choose differently, this god's fore-knowledge today is wrong. But that cannot be, because god knows all, so tomorrow my "choice" is an illusion - what I am going to do has been pre-determined because I cannot do otherwise without making god wrong. We don't even need to say god predetermined it or caused it. Of course, the response is that if I were to choose differently, god would know that instead. But then I would be limited to that choice...and so on to infinity...this is "turtles all the way down" in another form.

You see - knowledge of the future gives the future a quality it otherwise does not have: existence. I cannot "know" the future unless it does, to some extent, exist - even if that existence is only in the mind of a god. That existence is then fixed because god already knows it and cannot be wrong.

The first option is cleaner: god knows all that is knowable - and the future (lacking existence) cannot be known.

[Sparko]

No you can't. If the creators intent precedes the creations choice, then whether the creation wants to do something or not, even that wanting is not a free choice. If the intent of the creator precedes the desire and choice of the created then the desires and choices of the created were engineered, not free. A creators plans are engineered, not willy nilly, which is why the results align with the intent.

But he chose that your free will choice be done.

[JimL]

But he chose that your free will choice be done.

C'mon Sparko, snap out of it, it's really not that complicated. Read carpe's reply above, and try to be objective.

[Sparko]

This philosophy just makes my head ache. Assuming the presuppositions behind the position, right now, at this moment a god exists that knows exactly what I am going to choose tomorrow. So tomorrow, if I choose differently, this god's knowledge today is wrong. But that cannot be, because god knows all, so tomorrow my "choice" is an illusion - what I am going to do has been pre-determined because I cannot do otherwise without making god wrong. Of course, the response is that if I were to choose differently, god would know that instead. But then I would be limited to that choice...and so on to infinity.

you are looking at it backwards. Gods foreknowledge is based on your free will choice. His choice might be temporally prior to your choice but it is after your choice logically.

Imagine if you had a time machine and could go back to just before Lincoln was assassinated, You would have "foreknowledge" that Booth would shoot Lincoln. You do not make him shoot Lincoln. it is his free will choice. If he chose NOT to kill Lincoln, then THAT would be what you "foreknow" because logically it is in your past even though temporally you are prior to the event because of your time machine. So logically speaking, God's foreknowledge is the same as someone who is in the far, far future who has perfect "past" knowledge but who has traveled back to "now" and knows exactly what you will freely do. If you were to do something different then that is what he would already foreknow.

[Mountain Man]

Yeah, it would seem that you believe in a limited finite god. And where in your Bible does it speak of "free will?"

Let's look at my examples:

For instance, God in his "full omniscience" can't know what a square circle looks like, or what it's like to possess tea and no tea at the same time and in the same sense...

Are you suggesting that God can defy logic? That doesn't make Him omnipotent, it makes Him impossible.

As to your second question, Joshua 24:15 is one of many verses that implies freewill.

[carpedm9587]

you are looking at it backwards. Gods foreknowledge is based on your free will choice. His choice might be temporally prior to your choice but it is after your choice logically.

Imagine if you had a time machine and could go back to just before Lincoln was assassinated, You would have "foreknowledge" that Booth would shoot Lincoln. You do not make him shoot Lincoln. it is his free will choice. If he chose NOT to kill Lincoln, then THAT would be what you "foreknow" because logically it is in your past even though temporally you are prior to the event because of your time machine. So logically speaking, God's foreknowledge is the same as someone who is in the far, far future who has perfect "past" knowledge but who has traveled back to "now" and knows exactly what you will freely do. If you were to do something different then that is what he would already foreknow.

The time machine analogy makes my point. I can observe what occurred in the past, and my observation does not change it. These are both true statements. This is true because it has already occurred and is fixed. It cannot be otherwise. We do not think twice about this. The past is the past and it occurred as it occurred. But now you are trying to apply that dynamic to the future - to actions that have NOT occurred. In so doing, you give the actions existence and they no longer can occur otherwise.

The philosophy fixes the timeline into an immutable whole. You can see the problem by simply taking a moment in time and playing it out.

1) Right this moment - god has knowledge of my choice tomorrow. That knowledge is what it is - right now.
2) When tomorrow comes - my choice must necessarily be fixed to that option. To do otherwise is to render god wrong today.

You (and those who subscribe to this theory) want the freedom to run back to today and adjust god's knowledge to what I actually choose tomorrow (the sleight-of-hand part), but god's knowledge at this moment in time is what it is. The future will either play out as god knows it - or god is wrong.

The problem is not resolved by noting that "knowing is not controlling" because I am not arguing that god's knowledge controls me. I am arguing that choice is an illusion because any other choice would compromise god's omniscience.

[Sparko]

The time machine analogy makes my point. I can observe what occurred in the past, and my observation does not change it. These are both true statements. This is true because it has already occurred and is fixed. It cannot be otherwise. We do not think twice about this. The past is the past and it occurred as it occurred. But now you are trying to apply that dynamic to the future - to actions that have NOT occurred. In so doing, you give the actions existence and they no longer can occur otherwise.

from my viewpoint, you made that post in the past. And here I am in the future and I exist! amazing. The future does exist. And your decision to write those words above are now "fixed" according to my viewpoint. Since you can't change what you typed in a few minutes ago, I guess that from my viewpoint here in the future, you had no free will.

The philosophy fixes the timeline into an immutable whole. You can see the problem by simply taking a moment in time and playing it out.

1) Right this moment - god has knowledge of my choice tomorrow. That knowledge is what it is - right now.
2) When tomorrow comes - my choice must necessarily be fixed to that option. To do otherwise is to render god wrong today.

You (and those who subscribe to this theory) want the freedom to run back to today and adjust god's knowledge to what I actually choose tomorrow (the sleight-of-hand part), but god's knowledge at this moment in time is what it is. The future will either play out as god knows it - or god is wrong.

The problem is not resolved by noting that "knowing is not controlling" because I am not arguing that god's knowledge controls me. I am arguing that choice is an illusion because any other choice would compromise god's omniscience.

If the future does exist as I believe, then even though the past is "frozen" according to that future's viewpoint, it doesn't mean that what we do is not freely chosen. The future only knows what we did because of those free will choices. If we chose differently then that is what they would know. It doesn't mean anything is fixed.

We know Booth shot Lincoln. From our view point he could not have done anything else. It is fixed. So you can say "he had no free will" - yet he did. IF he chose differently, then THAT is what we would remember. That would be our reality. What we know depends on what people in the past freely did.

If someone tomorrow knows what you are going to eat for supper, that doesn't mean that you have no choice. It only means he remembers what you chose to eat. If you choose differently, then he will remember differently.

[carpedm9587]

from my viewpoint, you made that post in the past. And here I am in the future and I exist! amazing. The future does exist. And your decision to write those words above are now "fixed" according to my viewpoint. Since you can't change what you typed in a few minutes ago, I guess that from my viewpoint here in the future, you had no free will.

Correct. Free will exists until you make the choice - then the choice is made and cannot be unmade. I do not have "free will" to change events that have already occurred. I had it up until they occurred. You are trying to impose that on future acts, and creating a conflict.

If the future does exist as I believe, then even though the past is "frozen" according to that future's viewpoint, it doesn't mean that what we do is not freely chosen. The future only knows what we did because of those free will choices. If we chose differently then that is what they would know. It doesn't mean anything is fixed.

Unfortunately, Sparko, it does. See my answer above.

We know Booth shot Lincoln. From our view point he could not have done anything else. It is fixed. So you can say "he had no free will" - yet he did. IF he chose differently, then THAT is what we would remember. That would be our reality. What we know depends on what people in the past freely did.

He had free will to make the choice - until he made it. Then free will no longer applies - the choice is made.

If someone tomorrow knows what you are going to eat for supper, that doesn't mean that you have no choice. It only means he remembers what you chose to eat. If you choose differently, then he will remember differently.

When you "remember" the future - you "fix" the future. Free will ceases to be a consideration.

[Sparko]

Correct. Free will exists until you make the choice - then the choice is made and cannot be unmade. I do not have "free will" to change events that have already occurred. I had it up until they occurred. You are trying to impose that on future acts, and creating a conflict.



Unfortunately, Sparko, it does. See my answer above.



He had free will to make the choice - until he made it. Then free will no longer applies - the choice is made.



When you "remember" the future - you "fix" the future. Free will ceases to be a consideration.

Our difference is in our view of time. I believe in the so-called B-theory of time. All time exists as a continuum. We are just experiencing this as "now" but in 5 minutes that will be our "now" but both exist in the entirety of space/time. Your future decisions are just as fixed as your past ones are. But just as your past choices were done of your own free will so are your future choices. What you choose is what gets "fixed" in time.

[carpedm9587]

Our difference is in our view of time. I believe in the so-called B-theory of time. All time exists as a continuum. We are just experiencing this as "now" but in 5 minutes that will be our "now" but both exist in the entirety of space/time. Your future decisions are just as fixed as your past ones are. But just as your past choices were done of your own free will so are your future choices. What you choose is what gets "fixed" in time.

Perhaps. But that description of time is, to me, meaningless. If all of time exists as a continuum, then all of time is fixed and all choices are merely an illusion we have as we traverse the already existent timeline. It is much like sitting in your car and the car next to you starts to back out. You have a brief illusion of forward motion, but in fact you are sitting still. As we traverse the timeline, if it already exists, then we may "feel" we are making choices - but in fact all choices already exist and we are simply following an existent timeline.