Omniscience vs. Free Will

Cyperium

08-28-04, 05:22 AM

Nasor

08-28-04, 11:25 AM

However, if it is by your free will to do A and God knows that, then it's still by your free will that you do A, allthough God foresaw it.If there is no possibility that I will do something, then how can you say that I really have free will to choose it?

HallsofIvy

08-28-04, 02:08 PM

beyondtimeandspace

08-28-04, 11:57 PM

HallsofIvy, you are very correct. You caught my reasoning before I got here. To say "God knows what I WILL do" is false. Since God is not bound by the dimension of time (that is, the sequential movement from one event to the next), it is more proper to say that "God knows what I do." In the sight of God, all is happening at once, every moment of time is at present for Him. However, that every moment of time is at present for Him (ie, experienced wholistically rather than sequentially) does not mean in any way that God has influenced, or scripted any of those moments. Those moments of time were no scripted by Him, but rather us. It is our choices that determine what those time-segment events will be. God simply knows them in the Eternal Now. It is a false way of thinking to see God as an oracle who sees future events as though He is not experiencing them immediately.

Cyperium

08-29-04, 05:58 AM

If there is no possibility that I will do something, then how can you say that I really have free will to choose it?You allways have a free will. I want to fly out of the balcony right now, but I know that I'll drop dead, so I don't do it. That means that I have free will, but I haven't got the option to carry it out.

There is allways a possibility to "want" or "will" something, so I don't really understand your question.

You can choose the impossible also, but it won't do much good cause you can't carry it out.

If you really have no options, then of course you wouldn't be able to choose anything. That doesn't mean that you don't have free will, it just means that you can't use it since there are no options available. But when there is no options available in one sence, then surely there are options available in another sence, you can still choose to think what you want, you can choose anything, otherwise you would be dead, or?

water

08-29-04, 09:08 AM

1. God's knowledge cannot be wrong.
2. God knows that I will do A.
3. If I have free will, then (I can do A) and (I can do ~A).
4. If I can do ~A, then it is possibly true that I will do ~A.
5. If it is possibly true that I will do ~A, then God's 'knowledge' that I will do A is possibly false.
6. If God's knowledge that I will do A is possibly false, then God's
'knowledge' can be wrong.
7. Therefore, God's knowledge that I will do A is not possibly false.
8. Therefore, it is not possibly true that I will do ~A.
9. Therefore, I cannot do ~A.
10. Therefore, it is false that (I can do A) and (I can do ~A).
11. Therefore, I don't have free will.

This is crooked all over, from inception.

1. God's knowledge cannot be wrong.

Alright.

2. God knows that I will do A.

Let's be careful with this one.

3. If I have free will, then (I can do A) and (I can do ~A).
4. If I can do ~A, then it is possibly true that I will do ~A.

Alright.

5. If it is possibly true that I will do ~A, then God's 'knowledge' that I will do A is possibly false.

But 5 does not follow from the above 4.
If God knows that you will do A, this knowledge is not affected by you having the ability to do ~A.

Step 5 is uttered by someone who already suggests that free will and the existence of God's omniscience are mutually exclusive.

The rest of the proof is based on this false premise in step 5.

6. If God's knowledge that I will do A is possibly false, then God's 'knowledge' can be wrong.

7. Therefore, God's knowledge that I will do A is not possibly false.

See comment to step 5.

8. Therefore, it is not possibly true that I will do ~A.

You being able to do ~A does not exclude God knowing that you will do A.

9. Therefore, I cannot do ~A.

You have the ability to do A; but whether you will do it or not, is up to you, not up to God. God knowing that you will do A has nothing to do with you *having to* do A. You can do A or ~A, God will know in advance (if he is omniscient).
It is just that you don't know what God knows.

10. Therefore, it is false that (I can do A) and (I can do ~A).

No, it's not. God does not decide what you will do or not do. You decide. The omniscient God knows what you will do, but you don't know what God knows.

11. Therefore, I don't have free will.

Yes, you do have free will. You are just conceptualizing it in a false manner where it looks as if you wouldn't have free will.

This whole 1-11 proof is based on the ideas that 1. man knows what God knows, 2. man does what God dictates. -- Which we can surely refute very simply: 1. Man is not omniscient, so man does not know what an omniscient being knows. 2. a) How is man to know what God dictates? b) Pretty much any religion we take, most of them know of man's rebellion against God, thus people aren't doing what God dictated. That is, in those religions that state they know what God dictated.

Godless

08-29-04, 09:14 AM

It's all an assumption!.

When you start with "god" an entity we can't possibly know of its existence or not.
So he postulates on the assumption that god exists, though he is not certain, nor can show evidence, of this being.

Godless.

Nasor

08-29-04, 11:31 AM

You allways have a free will. I want to fly out of the balcony right now, but I know that I'll drop dead, so I don't do it. That means that I have free will, but I haven't got the option to carry it out.

There is allways a possibility to "want" or "will" something, so I don't really understand your question.

You can choose the impossible also, but it won't do much good cause you can't carry it out.It’s not a question of being able to do what you want; it’s a question of whether our thoughts, actions, and choices are all pre-determined. If you really have no options, then of course you wouldn't be able to choose anything. That doesn't mean that you don't have free will, it just means that you can't use it since there are no options available. But when there is no options available in one sence, then surely there are options available in another sence, you can still choose to think what you want, you can choose anything, otherwise you would be dead, or?If it is possible for a being to have perfect foreknowledge of your future, then even your ‘wants’ and ‘wills’ must be immutably predestined.

§outh§tar

08-29-04, 05:25 PM

There is a third alternative to saying either "God does not exist" or "there is no free will".

That is saying that God is independent of time. In that case I CAN'T argue that "God already knows what I will do" since the notion of "already" does not apply to God.

The site responds thus:

Others have tried saying that "God is outside time" and "God observes all time." This talk of "outside" and "observing" time is very anthropomorphic, and I don't know what the theist "really" means when they say that God is "outside time." Did God walk out the door of "Time" restaurant for a smoke or something? Can I go outside time for a walk? Is God sitting on his couch watching space-time on his 4d television? I have no experience of things "outside time," so I don't know what the theist means. But, even granting the plausibility of being "outside time," the theist is still faced with the problem of God's free will. After all, the theist's reason for positing free will is that "God does not make robots. Love must be freely given and freely received." Surely God Himself is not a robot. If God has free will and makes choices, then God must have a future. Does God know His own future? If so, we have the perfect foreknowledge / free will paradox all over again. If not, God cannot be said to be truly omniscient. Further, if God interacts with this universe and makes prophecy (even becoming incarnate once), it would seem that God is "inside time" from time to time (see what I mean about the incoherency of this "outside time" talk?), so this line of defense must be rejected as a total failure.
---------

Therefore how can God immerse Himself in time? Would that mean God has no future?

§outh§tar

08-29-04, 05:29 PM

Rosa Magika
But 5 does not follow from the above 4.
If God knows that you will do A, this knowledge is not affected by you having the ability to do ~A.

Step 5 is uttered by someone who already suggests that free will and the existence of God's omniscience are mutually exclusive.

The rest of the proof is based on this false premise in step 5.

If I could either post this reply or not. But you knew without a doubt that I would definitely post this reply even though I could possibly not post the reply, then that would question whether or not you knew it as a fact. Since premise 1 indicates that your knowledge cannot be wrong, then I cannot possibly not post this reply as that would indicate that although you knew I might post, I might violate your omniscience and go ahead and not post.

The site also adds:
---
In most cases the argument goes right over the head of the theist. They say, "So what? Does God knowing what you will do mean that He is forcing you to do it? No." They equivocate "having free will" with "not being forced to do things by God." But free will as defined above means the ability to do A and the ability to do ~A. The argument states that omniscience implies the lack of free will, not that omniscience implies that the omniscient being is making choices for you. The omniscient being could very well be powerless and unable to interact with the physical world, but this does not affect the argument in any way. This 'objection' makes as much sense as "So what? Does God knowing what you will do mean that Bill Clinton has a remote control on your brain manipulating your every action? No."
---

He addresses most of the arguments about his proof on there in case you aren't satisfied.

beyondtimeandspace

08-30-04, 01:26 AM

To the question of being "outside of time" I answer thusly: You are very correct in questioning this notion, for, by its wording, it is misleading, and clouds the true concept behind it. In fact, most who claim to hold the belief that God is "outside of time" have a false understanding of this concept. What is meant by "God is outside of time" is that God is not relegated to time, not bound by the laws of time. If God created the universe, and time is a dimension of that universe, then God created time, and so could not be bound by it. However, it must be made clear that because God is not relegated to time, and time did not exist prior to creation, that there must have been no point "in time" when creation occurred, but rather that creation (for God) is an immediate, and eternal reality, neither part of the past, nor of the future, but something that simply is. The fact that God is not bound by the laws of time, nor relegated to it, does not mean that He cannot interact with it, and within it. Since God lives in the "Eternal Now" or "Eternal Present" all points in time do not occur seperately for Him, but rather all points in time occur simultaneously, always. Actually, it would even be false to say that they occur, in His sight, but rather that all points of time simply are. This being the case, God's interaction with any moment in time is not something that occurs THROUGH time, but rather, the interaction made of that (or those) moment(s) in time have always been, and have never changed. It is only by the perception of those relegated to time that it appears that God changes because we understand sequence, and change within sequence. However, God's understanding, experience, and even being, is wholistic, not sequential. Thus, God holds His omniscience, His free will, and His immutabiliy, due to His Infinity, and Eternal Nature.

water

08-30-04, 05:07 AM

South Star,

The argument states that omniscience implies the lack of free will, not that omniscience implies that the omniscient being is making choices for you. The omniscient being could very well be powerless and unable to interact with the physical world, but this does not affect the argument in any way.

Well, what does the author of this argument want??!

For crying out loud, nobody chose himself to be born -- and if some wish to see this as an obstruction of free will, then bloody okay.

But there are things that are pre-choice (being born, natural colour of hair, eyes, ......) -- are we to call them an obstruction of free will?! This is absurd.

If I could either post this reply or not. But you knew without a doubt that I would definitely post this reply even though I could possibly not post the reply, then that would question whether or not you knew it as a fact. Since premise 1 indicates that your knowledge cannot be wrong, then I cannot possibly not post this reply as that would indicate that although you knew I might post, I might violate your omniscience and go ahead and not post.

But can't you see -- you don't know what an omniscient being knows. You don't have feed-back information. That whole construct in that 1-11 proof is based on 1. man knows what God knows, 2. man does what God dictates -- and that proof works only if you believe that 1. man knows what God knows, 2. man does what God dictates.

This:

The argument states that omniscience implies the lack of free will

makes me angry. Humans are limited beings with limited abilities, limited time and limited energy. Are these limitation to be viewed as lack of free will?!
Omniscience would mean lack of free will only if you knew what the omniscient being knows. Which you don't know. And because you don't know, you have a sense of free will. That sense of free will is true and real as long as you are a limited being.

Votorx

08-30-04, 12:10 PM

If god is all powerful then he should be able to bend every law of nature he created, and make what should be impossible, possible. In other words if he's all powerful then he can easily control our lives and still give us free will (remember, to know you have no free will is impossible since you would need to be able to know and observe what free will is first). In reality, we may have no free will, but because of the way we live and think we have free will to the highest degree because of the way we perceive it.

beyondtimeandspace

08-30-04, 02:04 PM

God could only bend the Laws of Nature only if those laws were not something contained within Him already. As an infinite being, to lack any form of law within His being would represent a limitation, and He would not be infinite. It would represent a limitation since then He would not experience all, and so could not create all. God is omniscient because there is no thing that is lacking in His own nature (as an infinite being), and because He is Eternal, and whatever is not a part of His being (creation) He experiences immediately and always. God is all powerful because since there is no thing lacking in His own nature, there can be no power also that is lacking in His own nature (as an infinite being). Therefore, since there is no law that is not a part of His own being, then to change of break any existing Law of Nature would constitute a change in Himself. This, however, cannot be so. If God were able to change Himself, then He would not be infinite (since there would be a form that He did not experience, a law which lacked in Him originally). If God is not infinite, then He could not be omnipotent. If God is not omnipotent, then there is certainly no reason to believe that He can make the impossible possible in our universe. Therefore, we cannot be mistaken about our free will. Since we have the ability to choose based upon reason, even choose against reason, and we can choose from no coersion by anyone but ourselves, then we have free will. Free in that we cannot be made to do what we do not wish. This does not mean that we can't be made to do what we did not know we were doing. Simply that if we do not want to do it, then no one can force us. Read this however you want, but when we give in to an outside force (even physical), then it is indeed our wills that allow it.

Votorx

09-01-04, 05:33 PM

*sigh* You seem to have completely mis understood what I just said...

beyondtimeandspace

09-01-04, 09:00 PM

In my response to your previous post, my last post was meant to show that just because God is omnipotent doesn't mean that He is able to bend or break the laws of nature (which is what you suggest an omnipotent being can do). With this first premise refuted, the rest of your argument does not stand (since this is what you base your argument on). You begin by asserting that God can bend the laws of nature, and proceed to conclude that He can control the the lives of the free (which is contradictory, since the free control their own lives). To control is to take away freedom, so in controlling our lives, He would remove the possibility of free will. Therefore, He cannot control our lives, and give us free will simultaneously. In reality, yes, we may have no free will, and we may simply be deluded. However, the evidence that we have indicates that we have free will, and the idea of an infinite creator does not contradict this evidence.

machaon

09-09-04, 05:54 PM

I am going to keep this simple. If god is all knowing and has the power to make everything good in this world but does not, that would make god a prick. Which in a way would be a good thing, because I DO believe that pricks exist.

beyondtimeandspace

09-09-04, 09:47 PM

Who said God has the power to make everything good in this world?

§outh§tar

09-09-04, 10:21 PM

South Star,

Well, what does the author of this argument want??!

For crying out loud, nobody chose himself to be born -- and if some wish to see this as an obstruction of free will, then bloody okay.

But there are things that are pre-choice (being born, natural colour of hair, eyes, ......) -- are we to call them an obstruction of free will?! This is absurd.

But can't you see -- you don't know what an omniscient being knows. You don't have feed-back information. That whole construct in that 1-11 proof is based on 1. man knows what God knows, 2. man does what God dictates -- and that proof works only if you believe that 1. man knows what God knows, 2. man does what God dictates.

This:

makes me angry. Humans are limited beings with limited abilities, limited time and limited energy. Are these limitation to be viewed as lack of free will?!
Omniscience would mean lack of free will only if you knew what the omniscient being knows. Which you don't know. And because you don't know, you have a sense of free will. That sense of free will is true and real as long as you are a limited being.

Well I am basing this on Biblical information for the most part as my source on information about omniscience. It states that God has all forehand knowledge and also that He has elected some to be in heaven and some to be in hell, which obviously does not imply free will as we see it. The Bible after all, is considered an authoritative source of information on God and His nature.

John Connellan

09-10-04, 05:42 AM

Who said God has the power to make everything good in this world?

Or even, what is "good"?!

water

09-10-04, 08:28 AM

Well I am basing this on Biblical information for the most part as my source on information about omniscience. It states that God has all forehand knowledge and also that He has elected some to be in heaven and some to be in hell, which obviously does not imply free will as we see it. The Bible after all, is considered an authoritative source of information on God and His nature

One:

So what if God has elected some to be in heaven and some to be in hell?!

You do not know about God's knowledge. You do not know what God knows.

And you will not know it until Judgement Day, to use the Christian terminology.

So stop doing as if you would know.

Two:

What do you see as free will? Being able to move mountains?!

The institute of free will has been abused for making an argument that there either is no God, or that we don't have free will, as if the two are mutually exclusive.
BS.

Read my post in the other free will thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40602 .

Jenyar

09-10-04, 09:14 AM

Or even, what is "good"?!
"Why do you ask what is good? Only God is good!" ;)

Cyperium

09-10-04, 06:07 PM

It’s not a question of being able to do what you want; it’s a question of whether our thoughts, actions, and choices are all pre-determined. If it is possible for a being to have perfect foreknowledge of your future, then even your ‘wants’ and ‘wills’ must be immutably predestined.I understand how you mean.

I think that God knows everything, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everything is predetermined. God may have such a good understanding of us, that he knows all the steps we will take, and since he see everything he knows everything.

God is beyond time, which may mean that He can exist at all times at the same time (!).

God hides things for us, we find things. I don't think that God moves us around like robots and constantly making the options for us. I think that God see what we do and even what we will do.

If we take all possible options and put them in a jar.

And if we take the jar and put it on numerous plates. Where each plate is one possible combination of the options in the jar.

(remember, there is only one jar, which contains all the possible options).

Then God is above all those plates.

beyondtimeandspace

09-11-04, 03:52 AM

Hmm hmm hmm.... While God, being infinite (it would be wise to meditate on the meaning of this small phrase, "God, being infinite) is good, to a maximal degree, it cannot be true that only God is good. For, if God created, then what He created came from His mind, and surely what is in the mind of God is good, if He, being infinite, is indeed good. Therefore, to ask, 'can God make anything good?' is silly, for a maximally good being can only create good things (it would also be wise to meditate on the meaning of goodness, as such, as well as evil, as such, then will such statements as these become ever clearer).

I did not pose the question, "Who said God has the power to make everything good in this world?" to imply that God could not, per se. Nor did I intend jest to any degree. I asked it to bring attention to the meaning of the assertion of God's omnipotence. It has come to my attention, recently, of an interesting contradiction in the normal understanding of the assertion. For, along with this assertion, as well as the assertion that God is infinite, is also the assertion that, because God is as such, He is Pure Act. This meaning that there is no pontentiality within Him. A maximal being, an infinite being, is full, and unchanging, unable to experience beyond its own essence, because there is nothing beyond its own essence. So there is nothing to change into, no potential that is not met within itself.

So then ask this. If God is Pure Act, and there lies within God no potential to change (for change is the movement from the potential to the actual), then does God really possess potency? I can hear the snickers already, yet bear with the idea. Most would assert that God, being omnipotent, is just to say that He can do anything, that He is capable of doing anything. Yet, this implies potency, potential to do anything. How can this, then be true, if God is truly Pure Act, infinite? It cannot, since then it would imply a contradiction within the nature of God, the nature of the infinite.

Furthermore, to say that God is capable of doing anything, capable of change, implies also that He is relegated, strictured, bound by the laws of time. The since He is capable of doing anything, there lies a possible future in which He is doing that thing. Yet again, the speaks of contradiction within the nature of the infinite, since the infinite is not relegated to any law, since all laws are a part of its nature, and come out of its nature.

So then, what can the true meaning, if it to still be asserted, be of God's omnipotency? First, we should break down the word itself, understand its roots. Omnipotence is also named 'all-powerful' since this is exactly what it means, coming from the Latin. Power. What is power? It is the ability to act, as well as the ability to affect. Therefore, to have power is to be able to act in a given way and to affect else, as well as self, by that act. Now, what is it to be powerful? To be full is to lack nothing according to specified parameters. So, to be powerful is to lack nothing according to being able to act in a given way. There are many different powers, and there are different degrees to which those powers can be wielded. Once a person is able to wield a given power to its fullest extent, then that person is said to be powerful. What is it then to be all-powerful? This means that, whatever powers exist, a being that is all-powerful possesses them to their fullest extent. This means, that in whatever ways it is possible to act, then a being that is all-powerful is capable of acting according to those powers in every possible way. An infinite being would thus be all-powerful, since every power is contained within it.

Yet, what is power if it is not used? Is it really power? It occurs to me that if something is potent, that that potency is eventually released. If potency were never released, then is it really potent? I question this because it seems that if something were to be all-powerful, then every of those powers would be excercised, otherwise it seems that such a being wouldn't really be all-powerful.

This is especially true of such a being were to be infinite, and eternal. Consider, we have already established that an infinite being must contain every power within it, and therefore must be capable of acting in every possible way. Furthermore, we've already established that an infinite being is pure act, meaning that there is no room for change, every potential is met. An infinite being would also be eternal. Such a being, even if it WERE relegated to the laws of time, would have no reason not to explore every part of itself. However, it is not relegated to time. Therefore, being pure Act, such a being is in constant action, and since it is infinite and unchanging, it is therefore constantly enveloped with the same actions, not moving from one action to the next, but performing every action it is capable of simultaneously. Furthermore, it, being capable of every power, is therefore performing every possible action simultaneously.

This answers several questions. First, if God is infinite, then it is not possible for Him to change the state of the world, for whatever reason, else it would be accomplished always. Second, it answers the question of creation. Since God is capable of creating, He must therefore be in the constant act of creation. Thirdly, it denies that God can do the impossible, for there can be no such power to perform the impossible. If it can be done, then it only seems impossible due to lack of knowledge or understanding. If something can be done, then there is a power to perform it. If it cannot be done, then there is no corresponding power, since a power is exactly the ability to do.

If the world is the place it is, and God is infinite, and He must therefore be unable to change the world, for whatever reason, then it does not affect His omniscience. In fact, that the world is the way it is, and God has not changed it, then it is a testament to free will. If Free Will is the reason that God cannot change the world (and I'd be willing to bet that it is the reason), then, in fact, it has nothing to do with God's omniscience.

THEREFORE, whether God is omniscient or otherwise, by the very nature of free will God could not have made the world any different than it is, nor can He change it, for there is no power to perform contradiction.

Eh... I'm starting to lose focus. I think I've said enough. It's a good thing to mull over and discuss.

Nasor

09-11-04, 04:23 PM

I understand how you mean.

I think that God knows everything, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everything is predetermined. God may have such a good understanding of us, that he knows all the steps we will take, and since he see everything he knows everything.See, that gets right to the heart of the philosophical problem. If god is able to predict with perfect accuracy what we will do because he knows everything about us, that implies that we live a ‘clockwork’ existence in which every decision is determined in a mechanistic way by our characteristics and circumstances. Look at a watch, for example: we are able to know exactly what a pocket watch will do (ticking off the minutes and hours) because we know about how the pocket watch is built – the watch’s characteristics allow us predict exactly how it will behave. Of course, the watch doesn’t have a free will – all of its actions are predetermined. If knowledge of our characteristics allows god to know exactly what we’re going to do, it means that we don’t really have a choice when making decisions, just like the watch doesn’t have a choice about its actions. God is beyond time, which may mean that He can exist at all times at the same time (!).

God hides things for us, we find things. I don't think that God moves us around like robots and constantly making the options for us. I think that God see what we do and even what we will do.No one is suggesting that god controls us like a puppet master – that isn’t really what the debate is about. Here’s an example to try to illustrate the two opposing views here:

Suppose you go to the kitchen to get a drink, and you have to decide whether to get water or juice. If you believe in free will, then you would say that you could get either water or juice, and it’s up to you to decide which to get. You will only pick one in the end, but you could pick either one, and which one you pick is a free choice. You have the potential to choose either. Once you make you choice (suppose you pick water) then you would say that although you picked water, you could have picked juice instead, but you chose not to – it could have gone either way, depending on your will. Of course someone who knew that you liked water and hated juice might have been able to predict with a high degree of certainty that you would pick the water, but it was still at least theoretically possible that you could have picked the juice, and so even knowing your preference for water they wouldn’t be able to be 100% certain that you would pick the water over the juice.

On the other hand, if you believe that our actions are entirely deterministic, then you would say that although you had to choose between the water and the juice, it wasn’t really a choice: it was inevitable that you would pick the water. Even though you felt like you could have chosen the juice if you wanted it, in reality you couldn’t have – it was predestined that you would get the water, and there was never really any possibility that you would choose juice. So yes, you had a choice, but the results of that choice were inevitable; there was only ever really one possibility. You never really had the potential to pick the juice, even though you might have felt like you could have. In this case, it would be possible for someone who knew all about you to analyze the situation and know with 100% certainty that you would pick the water.

Hopefully that illustrates the opposing views here. One views the future as fixed and inevitable with all of our choices predetermined – the feeling of having a choice when you make a decision is just an illusion. You’re like a pocketwatch that is ticking through your existence. The other view is that our future isn’t fixed, and that when we make a decision it really is possible for us to choose either way.

If you believe that the future isn’t fixed, and that we really have the potential to choose from different options when making a choice, then it should be impossible for anyone to have knowledge of our future. If god knows what we’re going to choose, then all our decisions are inevitable and we never really have the option of deciding anything else.

anyway, hopefully that clears it up. sorry about all the italics.

Nasor

09-11-04, 04:25 PM

§outh§tar

09-11-04, 08:37 PM

One:

So what if God has elected some to be in heaven and some to be in hell?!

You do not know about God's knowledge. You do not know what God knows.

And you will not know it until Judgement Day, to use the Christian terminology.

So stop doing as if you would know.

Two:

What do you see as free will? Being able to move mountains?!

The institute of free will has been abused for making an argument that there either is no God, or that we don't have free will, as if the two are mutually exclusive.
BS.

Read my post in the other free will thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40602 .

"Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." Acts 15:18

"And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for Yahueh searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever." 1 Chr. 28:9

"For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things." I John 3:20

John 16
30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

Even Paul says:
"Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? (Romans 9:19-21)

Like I said, the Bible is my source for understanding that God is omniscient in this case.

okinrus

09-12-04, 04:17 AM

First, of all, the use of formal logic is this matter seems to be a ploy to lend it credibility. He never begins his premises with full definitions of free will, can, possible and knowledge.

Second, the problem noted by Rosmagic is that he assumes a definition of free will not generally held by Christians who believe both that God knows the future and that we have free will. That is, he assumes that there exist a point in time when we either can do A or can do ~A. Free will merely states that if we do A, it's possible that we have chosen A.

beyondtimeandspace

09-12-04, 04:21 AM

Would you care to explain this? Even if god is maximally good, it doesn’t seem to necessarily follow that everything he creates is also good. Why wouldn’t god be able to decide to create something very much unlike himself, something that isn’t good?

Alright Nasor, I'll answer your question with as much clarity as I can muster right now.

Try to understand what it means to be Actually Infinite. If you add, and add, and add, and add, forever, you can never equal an actual infinite, for an actual infinite is a complete set. This means, that whatever is possible to add together, is contained within God. Which means, that if He were to create something, being actually infinite, that which makes up the thing He creates would already be contained within Him, since whatever is made could be added to the potentially infinite chain, which would always work toward the actual infinite. So if God is maximally good, being actually infinite, then whatever He creates outside of Himself must also be good. If something is evil, it must therefore be negative, rather than additive, if God is maximally good, and infinite. This is because If God is maximally good and infinite, then whatever is additive is part of His nature, since whatever is negative would not be a part of the infinite, since it would remove from the complete set. Therefore, if God were to create outside of Himself, that which is entirely unlike Himself, then that thing would be inherently evil, totally negative. Yet this cannot be, where there is already nothing existing. For in order to remove there must be something to remove from, and if God is the creator of all, then there is nothing outside of what God has created, therefore, God would create that which is like Himself, that which is Good. To create good and the create evil, would simply to add and then subtract to come to nothingness which, if there were nothingness beside Him, is what He started out with, and His creative act would be pointless. Yet if we are to say that God is infinite, and eternal (which needs be if He is infinite), then He must also needs be omnipresent, and therefore what is outside of Him cannot be nothingness, for there can be nothing outside of the omnipresent, except that which is like, to some degree, the infinite. Yet, even where there is that which is like the infinite, there is the omnipresence of the infinite. So, what is created was created out of eternity, and that which is part of the creation is relegated to time and change, and so there seems to be beginning. However, for the infinite there is no beginning and no end, so for the infinite there was no prior to creation, which means there was never nothingness. This means that if God were to create that which is entirely unlike Himself, namely evil, then He Himself would be evil, since He would be performing a supremely evil act of destruction.

*sigh*... I don't know how clear that is. As it is, I'm slightly intoxicated right now, and I may have veered from topic here or there. But I think you get the gist. If not, let me know, and I'll try to explain it more thoroughly later.

G,night.

water

09-12-04, 04:30 AM

Like I said, the Bible is my source for understanding that God is omniscient in this case.

What is your point?

Do you think that because God is omniscient this somehow excludes you from having free will?

okinrus

09-12-04, 05:15 AM

There's something else wrong about his argument. It's not logically consistent.

1. God's knowledge cannot be wrong.
2. God knows that I will do A.
3. If I have free will, then (I can do A) and (I can do ~A).
4. If I can do ~A, then it is possibly true that I will do ~A.
5. If it is possibly true that I will do ~A, then God's 'knowledge' that I will do A is possibly false.
6. If God's knowledge that I will do A is possibly false, then God's
'knowledge' can be wrong.
7. Therefore, God's knowledge that I will do A is not possibly false.
8. Therefore, it is not possibly true that I will do ~A.
9. Therefore, I cannot do ~A.
10. Therefore, it is false that (I can do A) and (I can do ~A).
11. Therefore, I don't have free will.

There's a contradiction at step 5. Because of the contradiction, he's supposed to immediately stop and say that his premises must be false. Instead he goes on deriving but *anything* can be derived from a contradiction.

alain

09-12-04, 05:21 AM

its simple, we dont have free will. We will always do what we think will be best for us, and for other people. there is no point doing something that we know is worse then what we could do. So all God needs to do is understand our priorities and he can predcit what we will do

water

09-12-04, 07:33 AM

There's a contradiction at step 5. Because of the contradiction, he's supposed to immediately stop and say that his premises must be false. Instead he goes on deriving but *anything* can be derived from a contradiction.

Errm ... see my first post in this thread on page one.

okinrus

09-12-04, 08:58 AM

water

09-12-04, 10:54 AM

No, I think its correct to go from step 4 to step 5. He's not being precise by the words possibly, but I would take it to mean there exist an event x such that x is in the set of possible future events. Because x exists and x is a possible future event, there is certainly a contradiction if God knows that x cannot occur. If God knows x could not occur, then x is not a possible event. x would therefore not exist in the set of future events. Because of the contradiction, he would have to stop right there and say that his premises are false. He would derive that freewill(his definition) or God's perfect knowledge or God's knowledge that he would do A are false.

Why are you doing as if you knew hat God knows?

Take a red pen and a blue pen, put them in front of you.
Let's say that I am God and I know which one you will take. You, however, do not know what I know.
It is possible that you will take either the red or the blue pen.
You take the red pen.
I knew that.
But you have no feed-back information from me, you do not know what I know.

***
I do not understand why such a mechanicistic perspective is taken with this proof.

"If God knows x could not occur, then x is not a possible event."

How is it not a possible event?! You do not know what God knows.

And I'm not saying this as "God works in mysterious ways, you know, therefore we cannot understand certain things". Not at all.

I'm just saying that God's knowledge *does not* affect you, inasmuch as you do not know what God knows.

Cyperium

09-12-04, 02:22 PM

Why are you doing as if you knew hat God knows?

Take a red pen and a blue pen, put them in front of you.
Let's say that I am God and I know which one you will take. You, however, do not know what I know.
It is possible that you will take either the red or the blue pen.
You take the red pen.
I knew that.
But you have no feed-back information from me, you do not know what I know.

***
I do not understand why such a mechanicistic perspective is taken with this proof.

"If God knows x could not occur, then x is not a possible event."

How is it not a possible event?! You do not know what God knows.

And I'm not saying this as "God works in mysterious ways, you know, therefore we cannot understand certain things". Not at all.

I'm just saying that God's knowledge *does not* affect you, inasmuch as you do not know what God knows.I agree with you RosaMagika.

okinrus

09-12-04, 05:21 PM

Take a red pen and a blue pen, put them in front of you.
Let's say that I am God and I know which one you will take. You, however, do not know what I know.

I would have to take the pen that you know I will take. The other possibility therefore is not truly a possible; it does not exist in the set of possible future outcomes.

ProCop

09-12-04, 05:51 PM

It’s pretty simple. Let’s say I have to choose between A and B. God already knows with certainty that I will pick A, and there’s no possibility that he’s wrong. If that’s true, then I can’t pick B, because otherwise God wouldn’t be sure that I’ll pick A. So, while it might seem that my free will allows me to choose between A and B, in reality I’m not free to choose B; it’s is inevitable that I will pick A, even though I might not realize it at the time. Therefore, I don’t have free will.

In jumping from step 8 to 9 he is simply pointing out that if God knows you won’t do something, you can’t actually freely choose not to do it – otherwise God wouldn’t know with certainty.

God knows the future. He can look forward and see what your free will (which you definitely have) has chosen/done. Therefore his knowing your choice doesn't affect your free will.

water

09-13-04, 07:04 AM

I would have to take the pen that you know I will take. The other possibility therefore is not truly a possible; it does not exist in the set of possible future outcomes.

Uh. You are stubborn. You don't know what I know!

In this argument, we cannot deal with God's knowledge, because we do not have it.

It has been established before that technically, we do not have free will (we cannot choose to be born, our natural eye colour, we cannot see through walls etc. etc.), but practically we do have free will.

Cyperium

09-13-04, 02:43 PM

Even if everything is determined, it would still be free will to us.

I could lay down here in my bed, and never rise again. But would that really be my will? If I did lay down and never rise, would that prove anything??

I think we make our own free will. We make our choice. Thus it is determined, but by us. God would then give us the ability, or He would let us go the way we want.

We are like pot makers (no, not *that* kind of pot). In the reality we are in, we can make the pot look like whatever we want. God being above us can see our ideas and what we want, and can by His insight and understanding of us know what will happen. That doesn't mean that we still can't make the pot we want.

After all, God made us, He made everything, so if anyone can understand us, then it's Him.

If I get the information I need, then I can to a certain degree of probability know what a person will do next, maybe I can't see many more steps into the future, but that I do see the next step (especially if I know the person well) doesn't mean that I made him take that step.

okinrus

09-13-04, 04:11 PM

Rosamagik, I understand sort of what you are saying but that is not the definition of free will used in his argument. Because the arguments assumes that God knows something, we have to take that as a premise.

Uh. You are stubborn. You don't know what I know!

Because we begin the argument with you having knowledge of this, it's alright to derive contradictions from this knowledge. Besides, I'm arguing from the standpoint of an external observer.

It has been established before that technically, we do not have free will (we cannot choose to be born, our natural eye colour, we cannot see through walls etc. etc.), but practically we do have free will.

What is your precise definition of free will? This is a physical constraint, not a barrier to free will. I could, for example, be stopped from doing anything physical--I would still have free will in thought and spirit. The definition of free will originally used was thus wrong;it was based upon possibilities, not choice. Even if every action I made was by a random process other than myself, I would not have free will. Certainly, however, there could be more than two possible actions, and therefore I would have free will under the definition of free will originally putforth.

Nasor

09-13-04, 05:32 PM

God knows the future. He can look forward and see what your free will (which you definitely have) has chosen/done. Therefore his knowing your choice doesn't affect your free will.You’re missing the point – if my future choice can be known in advance, than there is only one potentiality when I make my ‘free choice’. While it might seem that I have the potential to choose any of the options that appear to be available to me, in reality my choice is already fixed and I only have the potential to choose one specific thing. Which means I’m not really making a choice – I’m just acting out a script.

beyondtimeandspace

09-13-04, 09:47 PM

Nasor, the future is made by choice. God knows our future, because in His sight, you have already made the choice. It isn't that God knows our future actions, it's that He knows our choices, and the consequences of those choices. The choosing that He sees comes freely to us. To choose without being forced to choose is free choice. By saying that God knows our future, that we are playing out a script, and therefore have no free will, means that God's knowing of our future FORCES us to choose what He sees. It does not. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It is the choices that we make (will make, have made) that forces God to see what He sees. To believe otherwise would be to believe that God MAKES our future, and has made our past, that every action we perform is performed, was performed, in actuality by Him. Yet how can an infinite being perform the actions of the finite? Or, more importantly, how can the infinite choose actions that contradict itself?

ProCop

09-14-04, 04:11 AM

@beyondtimeandspace: excelent argument!

@Nasor God sees your choices <i>after</i> you have made them. That’s what makes him God…He can see your "future" as you (eg. now) see your past (past which you lived free). For you your past is now shaped (your future is not). God's omnipotence is in being able to see the future after it has happened. He "exists" spread in time and in the beyond of time...

TruthSeeker

09-15-04, 02:47 PM

Ahhh... just to expand beyondtimeandspace's idea....

If God is infinite, that implies that he is not only infinite in space, but also in time. So He has to know the future because He already saw it happening. It is not that He makes it, but what is future for us is always present to Him.

The bigger problem doesn't lie on the omniscence/free will side, but on the omnipotence/free will side. If God controls everything, how can we control ourselves? And that has, actually, a simple answer. He CAN control everything but He CHOOSES not to. But that is a whole other discussion... :p

Nasor

09-15-04, 03:51 PM

I will try to explain it again, because I don’t seem to be getting the point across.

In order to freely choose between A or B, I must have the potential to choose either A or B. If God knows in advance that I will pick A, then it is impossible for me to pick B. Since I can’t pick B, I can’t make a free choice between A or B. I might feel like I’m making a free choice, but in reality I’m not – because there is only really one choice open to me. If there is only one possible outcome to every choice, it isn’t really a choice.

This is what the guy who started this thread was trying to express, but he didn’t write it up very succinctly. I better way of putting it would be:

1. In order to freely choose between A or B it must be possible for me to choose A or B.
2. Suppose God knows with certainty that I will choose A (and not B).
3. Since it is impossible for me to do something that God is certain I won’t do, I can’t choose option B.
4. Since it is not possible for me to choose B, it is not possible for me to freely choose between A or B.

TruthSeeker

09-15-04, 05:36 PM

Too bad I just started my philosophy class (studying falllacies ;) )....

Ok...
1. You didn't really need to say that, that is obvious.
2. Ok... althought you don't need the word "suppose"
3. O-k... I think you need some more explanation here. This is just not enough. Why is it impossible? And if God knows you are going to do it, then doesn't that imply that He already saw you doing it, no matter what you have chosen?

Imagine if an astrologer would tell you that you are going to die tomorrow. You were planning to travel tomorrow, so instead you stay at home and protect yourself. What do you think it is going to happen? Maybe a fire could start and you finish dead! So if you had traveled you wouldn't die, but hearing the astrologer made you choose otherwise.

Nasor

09-15-04, 06:31 PM

3. O-k... I think you need some more explanation here. This is just not enough. Why is it impossible? If God knows that I won't do it, then there is no possibility that I will do it. If there is no possibility that I will do it, then I can't do it. Before I could do it, there would need to be some possibility that I could do it. It's almost tautological.And if God knows you are going to do it, then doesn't that imply that He already saw you doing it, no matter what you have chosen?If God is able to know with inerrant 100% certainty what I will choose – either because he has witnessed it in some immutable future timeline or because he is able to deduce it with certainty based on what he knows about me (which is presumably everything) – then there is only one possible outcome for every choice that I will make. Since you can’t make a ‘free choice’ when you only have one possible option, you aren’t really making a free choice.

TruthSeeker

09-15-04, 07:32 PM

Ok. Try to see it this way...

What did you do yesterday? Could you have chosen otherwise? You could, but you didn't. As you look back now, can you change what you have done yesterday? No. That's how it works. At the moment, you can choose it, but if you look from the future, back into the past, the choice is already made. You cannot confuse the present with the future. God is looking at you from tomorrow and He is saying "that's what you have done today". At the moment, you have the choice. But once the moment is gone, you cannot change what you have done.

According to your logic, since you cannot change the past you had no choice. That's what you are saying, in comparison to the present and future.

It's complicated because you have to understand that what we call "future" is the equivalent of "present" for God.

okinrus

09-15-04, 09:21 PM

Choice does not necessarily imply possibility. Those who believe in free will and believe in God's complete foreknowledge simply believe one can make a choice given someone has complete knowledge of the outcome of the choice. Of course, there's no contradiction until choice is defined to be between possible outcomes in the future.

But complete knowledge of every choice is not required for God to act perfectly as long as the choices given to man do not have possibilities that would keep God from acting perfectly. For this reason, God may act perfectly while also giving men choices that may effect the outcome of the future. Hence, there are theist, such as <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm">Molinists</a>, who believe that the future is not determined.

Jenyar

09-16-04, 04:57 AM

Then there's also the question whether something can be known if it doesn't exist yet. Like the results of our choices. The beacons might be fixed, the trajects along which life moves and the promises on which God delivers. In that sense it's more like living in a forest where we only see the sunlight where it shines through. It's not absent where there are shadows - the shadows wouldn't have been there if there wasn't light. Neither would the plants and trees, for that matter.

A more honest question would be: if we can't tell the difference between a determined world and an underdetermined one, aren't we using the wrong measurements? The nature of time, for example, is an assumption we simply take for granted in a discussion like this. Is it a separate reality from the perspective of the observer? Einstein said no, it's relative. Our lives are relative to God's actions - not directly proportionate to it. Life proceeded from God, but isn't still part of God. Why do you think it's so crucial that we live in a restored relationship with Him? If nature determines your fate... we all know where it leads to inevitably.

water

09-16-04, 04:48 PM

[Huh. Now I'm angry. For the n-th time:]

1. We do not know what God knows.

2. And that's the core of this 1-11 proof and Nasor's version: mixed up time perspectives.

A: God already knows the future. To Him, it is as if He is looking at things in retrospection, *ex post*. Knowledge is possible only ex post.

B: We do not know the future. We are only able to look at future things *ex ante*. That is, we cannot be sure about it. Knowledge is not possible ex ante.

This is *the* capital issue in this whole argument: we are dealing with two INCOMPATIBLE perspectives. Therefore, any conclusion we derive from these INCOMPATIBLE premises is FAULTY.

Or, as TruthSeeker said it:

According to your logic, since you cannot change the past you had no choice. That's what you are saying, in comparison to the present and future.

It's complicated because you have to understand that what we call "future" is the equivalent of "present" for God.

Cyperium

09-17-04, 02:37 PM

I think it would be a really scary ride if we got just a glimpse of what God have seen through His perspective.

Even if He made all the decisions and we just got a "passive" look, I still think that we would get a scare worthy of a lifetime.

TruthSeeker

09-17-04, 03:27 PM

This is *the* capital issue in this whole argument: we are dealing with two INCOMPATIBLE perspectives. Therefore, any conclusion we derive from these INCOMPATIBLE premises is FAULTY.
Care to explain that a little bit further.... ;)

beyondtimeandspace

09-17-04, 04:24 PM

Just to expand on Truthseeker's point, as well as RosaMagika's, so that the idea is a bit more clear.

Let us assume, for a moment, that God does not exist. The point that is trying to be made is this:

When you look into your past, there is only one past, the past that you've experienced and beyond into the experiences of those prior to you. You know what happened five minutes ago (around yourself, at the very least), and have a vague memory of what happened to you 10-20 years ago. While you may want to argue about what we actually know, let's just stick with the basic understanding of knowledge and say that "you know what happened in your past." Does this then mean that five minutes ago your future was set? Or 10-20 years ago your future was set? Most would say no, my past is what it is because of the choices I made, and because of other pervasive circumstances, such as genetic disposition.

Now, imagine that a person has his whole life video-taped. You have just finished making a few trillion copies of that tape, and you have just set up a few trillion tvs and vcrs. Now, pretend, for a moment, that you live longer than the average person and you don't need sleep or sustainance, and the machines that you have just set up don't wear over time. You insert the first video of this person's life into the first vcr and the tape begins to play. You proceed to the next vcr, insert the second video, and that tape begins to play. You continue to do this, and you play each of the videos one after the other, until all of the few trillion copies that you made are playing. This, of course, took several years and you step back to take a look at all of the tvs. The very first video you put it is just ending, and the last video is just beginning, and all at once you can see this person's entire life. Now, does your seeing this whole person's life at once mean that he has no free choice? Most would say that no, it doesn't.

However, you may argue that his life has happened already, it is a past event, and you perceiving it now has no bearing on what he did during life. You may also argue that if you saw all of those videos at the time when he was living, then yes, perhaps his actions were predetermined.

This is where the idea of God's omnipresence must be clarified. To be omnipresent isn't simply to exist in every place at once. To be omnipresent is to exist in every place, at every time, at once. This means that to be omnipresent isn't to travel through linear time, sequential time, as we do. This means that to be omnipresent, you experience every moment in time wholistically, all at once. This does not determine what every moment in time will be, since in this kind of presence, there is no "will be" but only what is. Therefore, while every moment of time is experienced by God, and thus known to Him, it is not determined by Him. It also means that though every moment in time is set in the presence, it is not set for us. This means that, for us, the future is not set, and that our future is determined by our choices. This is the nature of experiencing time sequentially rather than wholistically. Our choices determine each momentary event, and we experience each momentary event in sequence, whereas God experienced every event wholistically, and does not determine what those events are, apart from initial design.

what768

09-17-04, 05:29 PM

All these kinds of conflicts arise because there is a free will but also a destiny: These two are like the same thing. A coin also has two sides, but in reality it's "one" [coin]. An uphill is not an uphill and neither is a downhill what it claims; here, the truth is "gravity".

Both free will and destiny exists, and because of that, "they don't exist": Man's body is either male or female, but a man who does not "identify" himself with his body, will not be his body; he will not be a man or a female, because they are both in balance, and they cease to exist because of that.

God is omniscient and thus he knows everything, but from our viewpoint we have a free will. Only when we are like God, we will not have free will or destiny anymore. It does not matter how true something is if it is not true for ourselves.

ProCop

09-17-04, 06:48 PM

This is the nature of experiencing time sequentially rather than wholistically. Our choices determine each momentary event, and we experience each momentary event in sequence, whereas God experienced every event wholistically, and does not determine what those events are, apart from initial design.

I wrote a peace on this "wholistic" concept some years ago. A mind moves through a static universe...I called it 'The Elimination of Time',

here is a relevant part of it:

1) First I must dispose of time as co-existing element of space. Imagine a film box in which a role of film is rolled in. The movie which it contains is made from the beginning to the end and is now printed in plastic and will not change. You cannot see it all at once – but if you follow the tape with a small light (your brain?) all the way through you will experience the movie. You need time for that experience, but the movie itself doesn’t need time. It is ready and done.
2) Imagine a box of some size which is densly filled with miniscule points.They are structured similarly as the cells of my computer screen but they have the third dimension of depth. The box is now a structured quantity of points. These points are capable of taking on different qualities similarly to the computer screen cells which can take on different colors. Imagine the movie from the previous paragraph in 3D version.
3) Translate this image of 3D box to include the Universe.
4) Step yourself into this box en mingle with the points there. In such a way you wil became an actor in this movie. Your body has translated itself into points, and your mind watches (the movie) the Universe from the inside: your are the part of its structure which is made from the points.
5) Points can take on any form possible (therefore the mind experiences the points as a world..).

So there is a kind of a "frozen" universe. Timeless and unmoving and its ice contains all what can possibly happen. You are a kind of a buttefly flying there free to choose your way...but you experience the flight only mentally, outside of your mind nothing moves...

beyondtimeandspace

09-17-04, 08:14 PM

1) First I must dispose of time as co-existing element of space...

Time isn't an element of space, it is a dimension of space. We are able to perceive 4 dimensions of ten (according to the latest String Theory), time being the fourth.

4) Step yourself into this box en mingle with the points there. In such a way you wil became an actor in this movie. Your body has translated itself into points, and your mind watches (the movie) the Universe from the inside: your are the part of its structure which is made from the points.
5) Points can take on any form possible (therefore the mind experiences the points as a world..).
[/i]

So there is a kind of a "frozen" universe. Timeless and unmoving and its ice contains all what can possibly happen. You are a kind of a buttefly flying there free to choose your way...but you experience the flight only mentally, outside of your mind nothing moves...

It sounds here like you mean to say that the human mind existed prior to human existence such as we know it (body/soul) You also say that the film is already finished, so then do you become an actor that already exists in it, or do you make your own character in it? It almost sounds as if what we really are is simply a mind attaching itself to spacial forms of our choosing (ignore my bad grammar :p )... actually... you know what... the more I think about your last post the more I'm not sure how to respond. Alot of what is said my mind outright rejects from the onset of what it seems, but then as I consider it in various lights it makes sense to differing degrees based upon how you intend your words.

I think it would be best if you tried to explain your meaning a little more clearly. :D Thanks.

ProCop

09-18-04, 02:53 AM

I think it would be best if you tried to explain your meaning a little more clearly. :D Thanks.

The universe can be seen as a proces (eg. from the Big Bang to now) or a serie of states ( from the Big Bang to now). In mutiverse universe (a universe of which a copy/next state is slightly different and which exist side by side can lead to the illusion of generall existence of time. But this time, in which happens your movement from the eg. point A to the point B, exists only subjectively for you. You change your position from state to a different state but these states do not move or change - only you do.

(Imagine a big hall full of domino stones(cq "states"), push one and consequently (in a wave) they all fall. The top of the wave of the falling stones is you moving (metaphorically through the "states"). Now the same metaphor. The domino stones do not move/fall but you wave through the hall the same. You are the time. Only you move.) (There are many universes/states.) Time is a form of human percieving the (timeless) states/universe.

But I wrote the essay some time ago, I am bussy with other thinks now..I posted it because you came with the many videos model to freeze many moments into one momet in your post....this was interesting ..but the topic is free will, I wouldn't like to go too far away from it. But naturally, I answer any question about my post.

beyondtimeandspace

09-18-04, 04:59 PM

In other words, you are not your body. You are simply a consciousness that has attached itself to a particular within the model of sequential state frames. Therefore, you are not actually acting, but only experiencing. Therefore, there can be no morality, since you are not choosing to perform one particular action over the other, but rather, you simply chose to experience one set of experiences over another. You may argue that it is the choice to experience this given set over another that determines the morality of the given spirit, since it WANTED to experience such things. However, this too doesn't seem right, since, in this context, why would any set of experiences be any better or worse than any other, since each set was created, then, by the infinite.

What does this say about free will? It says that we have a choice in choosing a complete set of actions. However, while exeriencing such actions, we do not actually have control over them. Also, this suggests that we existed prior to experiencing these actions, and therefore, also would seem to exist afterwards. If this were the case, then it is conceivable that we would have an infinite amount of time to experience every form of action. THEREFORE, the only bearing that free will would have on us is our choice in which order to experience each set of actions. Yet, this also begs the question: how many of "us" are there? If there are an infinite number of us, then our choices in experiencing these sets of experiences is not actually free, since for every set there would be a corresponding "consciousness" to experience it, which means that there would only be one choice available to you at any given opportunity of choice. In this case, can we really be said to have free will? The only way that free will could remain in tact is if there were a limited number of "us" with an veritable infinite number of experience sets.

OR, I've completely misunderstood what you've been trying to describe.