A Paradox of Omniscience and Free Will

Everything else can be called healthy skepticism, but on what grounds have you excluded the possibility that an intelligent creator could make himself known to his creation? There are only three religions that claim to be revealed: Judaism, Christianity and Islam - and they all share the same roots. "Intelligence" is just an expression of complex thought, it doesn't depend on how much is actually known or understood.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by saying that there are only three religions that claim to be revealed. Guru Nanak claimed to receive a revelation from God, from my understanding. The Vedas are considered by some to be a revelation from God,
http://www.hinduforum.org/Default.aspx?sID=15&lID=0. And there are the Baha'is. Manichaeanism claimed to be revealed, but has died out or essentially has. And there's Zoroastrianism, which has Zoroaster who claimed a revelation from Ahura Mazda. And I believe that there are Buddhist sects which, even if they don't hold Buddha to be "God" in a Judeo-Christian-Islamic sense, nevertheless believe Buddha has revealed his teachings through various writings/ways. And then there are newer religions, such as Caodaoism, which claim revelation, http://www.religioustolerance.org/caodaism.htm.

There's the old goddess Kuan Yin, and a book called "Myths and prophecies of the Chinese goddess of compassion". I think there are many ancient religions/gods/goddesses and present day ones, which supposedly involve(d) some sort of revelation from some sort of deity. Look at the Moabite stone, for instance. Mesha, king of Moab, claims that Chemosh told him to attack Israel. Perhaps it'd be better to say "Judaism, Christianity and Islam are three of the most well known religions, which still have a sizable amount of adherents, that claim to be revealed".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

water,

So what's your point?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

water,

Credible evidence.

 

Jenyar,

I don’t think you understand chaos theory. That theory especially depends on cause and effect. The problem comes with there being so many variables that for us it is too difficult to predict the final outcome. A small change in one minor variable can have massive effects elsewhere; otherwise known as the butterfly effect.

You missed the point. It is because something omniscient will be aware of all variables that perfect knowledge will be possible. And especially if such a being designed the initial conditions.

How else can we experience time? What are the alternatives?

Non sequitur. It is specifically because you claim your god can have another perspective, i.e. omniscience, that we have the paradox.

But within each universe there is a sequence of cause and effect. You haven’t solved the problem since an omniscient creator will simply know the outcome of each thread – you still have cause and effect within each.

No, you have simply magnified it. The core issue remains.

If true then your god will not be omniscient and free-will would be possible. If there are an infinite number of possibilities but it doesn’t know which one will occur then it essentially doesn’t know what will happen – i.e. it is not all-knowing. We are back to the dice problem. I know how many possibilities exist but I don’t which one will occur when I throw the dice. Omniscience means that the exact outcome is known before the dice is thrown.

 

Jenyar,

No not really, you are having a problem perceiving a cause and effect sequence. Any alleged changes in condition is simply another event that would be known beforehand by an omniscient being at the beginning of time. The only way your half understood idea works is if we wait until the choice is made – and that’s fine but then omniscience wouldn’t exist and we would have free will.

We do? That isn’t omniscience that is inductive reasoning which is quite natural. But can you apply that to an event 1 million years in the future.

 

That trying to answer some questions is a waste of time.

 

"Credible evidence" is self-referential, depending on the observer, and thus, proves only this observer's part of objective reality.

 

water,

Credibility can be and must be in this case objective.

For example, ignoring blind people for the moment, we can all see the sun in the sky. That is universally overwhelming credible evidence that a sun exists.

You would need something similar at least to show a god exists, since if it were to exist then the repurcussions would be far greater than a mere sun. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Conversely the theist claim that a god exists because of a personal experience is neither credible or objective, since we can always construct other more rational explanations. In the case of the sun it's somewhat difficult to construct an alternate explanation.

 

water,

Sorry I was teasing you - asking what was the point of a question talking about pointless questions.

 

Kenny you cannot identify what God is not if you say you do not know what God is. One must know God to identify what is not God.

Your logic that God cannot be known only holds true when God chooses not to reveal Himself. Of course i believe that God has revealed Himself.

But it is Good that you acknowledge the possibility of Gods existence.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

Adstar,

Nonsense. God is not me. God is not my car. God is not the earth. God is not a fish. Etc., etc., etc..

 

Nonsense. God is all those things. At least, it is within them.

 

c7,

Will you worship me then? I think not. Clearly I am not a god.

Even if true it is not them, which was the issue.

 

*************
M*W: God must be atoms.

 

I already "worship" me, but you think I'm talking about your person Cris. I'm talking about your SELF.

Of course, how else would the electrons move around them. All this power, the magnetic energy, comes from God, from the self, from unity. Planets move around the sun because it's a manifestation, a copy, of God. The sun is a part of another greater system, a galaxy, so it's clear that it's only a copy of God, just like all of us are. God is omnipresent. You know the Zodiac. It is a symbolic model of God.

There is only one God and it is the self of all things.

 

cy,

My person is myself. I am not anyone or anything else. I'd know about it.

You are simply talking mystical nonsense again.

 

I am pretty sure if I really tried/wanted to, I could find 'God' like you have. But I know right now I would be just tricking myself and 'knowing' a figment of my own imagination. I value much higher the ability to think for myself rather than searching for an imaginary friend. The fact you get your information of God from musings from story tellers thousands of years ago confirms to me that you know bugger-all about our hypothetical creator.

Yes but coming from a religious person, that doesn't mean anything to me, as like I said, you wouldn't know a God if it bit you in the ass.

I have no doubt you do believe that. I also have no doubt it is irrelevant except for the fact it may provide you with some comfort, which is why some people need this manmade creation.

 

I have no personality because I have them all. That's the way the self is. Infinite. It can take whatever aspect of itself and express it. Each aspect in its right place and time.

Have you fallen love with your mask? Don't you remember, when you were small, you had no masks? People defend themselves, their persons, because they're afraid to lose their masks, they want to remain the persons, they fear the real self.

Personality is just a reflection, a shadow of the body. If you believe in your body, your person will become like your body.

 

*************
M*W: No, I don't remember having any 'mask.' I don't like masks. I am comfortable with who I am. No mask needed.

I can be anything I need to be. I'm gifted in the art of positive persuasion, but I'm happiest being myself. Further more, I can see right through people who try to be something they're not. Like you, for instance.