Log In :: Register
|
|||||||||
|
#
46201
Mon 30 Nov, 2009 12:14 pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
Whether omniscience is (logically) compatible with human freedom is an ancient philosophical and theological question. Many have thought it is obvious that it is not compatible, but that is not at all so obvious on analysis. In any case, discussion of this question can teach us a lot about knowledge and logic, so if even if it has been discussed before, it is worth discussing again.
|
|
#
46202
Mon 30 Nov, 2009 12:21 pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
What do you mean by "omniscience"?
and What do you mean by "human freedom"? |
|
#
46203
Mon 30 Nov, 2009 12:37 pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
prothero;107087 wrote:
Omniscience= knowing everything, especially what will happen in the future. (God has this power). Human freedom= the ability to have done otherwise. |
|
#
46204
Mon 30 Nov, 2009 01:16 pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
[QUOTE=kennethamy;107093]Omniscience= knowing everything, especially what will happen in the future. (God has this power).
Human freedom= the ability to have done otherwise.[/QUOTE] My girlfriend knew what I was going to do today, and I did exactly what she knew I would, and even though she knew that I was going to do what I did, I could have nevertheless done otherwise. Of course, had I done otherwise, it wouldn't be the case that she knew but only thought she knew, but that doesn't matter. That I won't do otherwise isn't to say that I couldn't do otherwise. If you know what I'm going to do, then I'm going to do what you know I will, but that I will isn't to say I must. I think this has to do with the modal fallacy. P1: the answer is either a, b, c, or d. P2: the answer is not a, b, or c. Therefore, C: the answer is d. That is correct, but the following is not: P1: the answer is either a, b, c, or d. P2: the answer is not a, b, or c. Therefore, C: the answer must be d. It's not the case that the answer must be d. We have to remember that even though a proposition is true, that is not to say that it's a necessary truth, for some truths are contingent truths. That my girlfriend knew what I was going to do isn't to say that I must do what I will. It may be the case (and is often the case) that I will do what I will do without it being the case that I must do what I will. Short answer: yes, they're compatible. |
|
#
46205
Mon 30 Nov, 2009 02:12 pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
I have the habit of watching the same video over and over again, if it is really good. I thought after the second time the hero would realise not to walk through that green door. He appears like an actor acting out his script, oh but he is.:perplexed:
Now if we could watch the script you wrote for yourself with all the ability of your free will, before you wrote it ...would it still remain your ability to exert your free will if we knew before what the script would be.... wot u did .. but not yet.. that is..ohhh my head hurts.. |
|
#
46206
Mon 30 Nov, 2009 03:06 pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
xris;107104 wrote:
That I will do what I will do is not to say that I must do what I will do. You actually think that I speed up and down the highway because I must? Maybe I shouldn't be held morally responsible for any accidents since I could not have done otherwise. But, I could have done otherwise! I could have chosen not to speed. There was nothing compelling me to speed. Yes, there was a cause, but there was no compulsion, and since there was no compulsion, I did what I did of my own free will. |
|
#
46207
Mon 30 Nov, 2009 03:44 pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
xris;107104 wrote:
What "script" do you think I am following? I am not an actor in a video. It is up to me what I do, not some script. But that is a different issue, whether there is free will. The question posed is whether free will is compatible with God knowing what you are going to do. Remember, as fast points out, I can know what you are going to do, but that does not mean that what you do is not up to you. So why should God's knowing what you will do be any different? |
|
#
46208
Mon 30 Nov, 2009 04:07 pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think you agree with me.... If my life was recorded with all my ability of free will. My life and its decisions would be mine...Now take that recording and take it back in time..You watch it and you know my life, my decisions, because you are privy to my life does it mean you influenced it? I dont think so, omniscience does not indicate my will is jeopardized.
|
|
#
46209
Mon 30 Nov, 2009 04:10 pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
xris;107120 wrote:
Yes. God can know what you will do of your own free will, and know that you will do it of your own free will. But then, His knowledge is not incompatible with free will. But is that possible? |
|
#
46210
Mon 30 Nov, 2009 04:35 pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
kennethamy;107121 wrote: I have no idea but the logic of it, in my opinion is correct. Im only replying to the idea of omniscience. Something is everywhere, at all times and the knowledge of everything is out there, if it is held by all or by one , is the question.
|
|
#
46211
Mon 30 Nov, 2009 06:30 pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
kennethamy;107093 wrote:
This would mean that: 1. Information about the future already exists in God's mind which would logically imply that: 2. Information about the future already exists. But (2) may in fact be false. If it is, then God cannot know what will happen in the future, because there is not yet anything to know about the future. There do not yet exist any facts about it; it is devoid of content. In that case, God could still be omniscient (i.e. he could know all there is to know) without knowing anything about the future. The future would not form part of the totality of all possible knowledge. |
|
#
46212
Mon 30 Nov, 2009 06:36 pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
ACB;107139 wrote:
That seems to me a different issue. Whether there is such a thing as knowledge of the future. But, supposing there is, is knowledge of what a person will do incompatible with his doing it freely? |
|
#
46213
Mon 30 Nov, 2009 06:57 pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
kennethamy;107142 wrote:
Do you mean knowledge with certainty, or just knowledge? Remember, as we keep discussing, knowledge does not imply certainty. If I see two boxers enter a boxing ring, I would say I know they are going to punch each other. And whether I'm certain or not, has nothing to do with my knowing, does it? If someone had knowledge of the future, but wasn't certain, then of course free will is compatible with knowing the future. My knowing that my mom is going to be in the kitchen at six tomorrow morning, has no influence on whether or not my mom has the choice to go in the kitchen tomorrow, does it? If someone had knowledge of the future, and was certain, I would still say free will is compatible. We still have to make the choices that cause the future to actually happen - and we make these choices. How else would the future come that is determined if we did not make the choices that led to the determination? Determinism and free will are not incompatible, as far as I can see. |
|
#
46214
Mon 30 Nov, 2009 07:01 pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
Zetherin;107145 wrote:
Yes. I agree. But you are right to distinguish between knowledge and certainty here. Some have argued that free will is compatible with knowledge, but not with certainty (which, presumably God has). |
|
#
46215
Mon 30 Nov, 2009 07:12 pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
kennethamy;107146 wrote:
But whether God has absolute certainty of everything, has nothing to do with my choices leading to the determination that only he knows. What is the argument that my having a choice is incompatible with someone being certain about my choice? |
|
#
46216
Mon 30 Nov, 2009 08:00 pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
Is there a difference between "will" and "free will"? Is there such a thing as unfree will (i.e. I do something because I will it, but my willing has an external cause, e.g. God)?
|
|
#
46217
Mon 30 Nov, 2009 08:09 pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
kennethamy;107142 wrote: Why do you say that? It seems directly relevant to the notion of divine omniscience (gods knowledge of the future). The future does not yet exist to be known even by god.
You perhaps wish to confine the thread to the assumption of divine omnipotence? We are just to assume it true? This a problem in analytic logic not a question about notions of the real world? ---------- Post added 11-30-2009 at 06:49 PM ---------- To those not engaging in religious apologetics (trying hard to maintain divine omnipotence) or those engaging in an exercise in analytic philosophy, the answer seems clear, foreknowledge of every action denies not only human freedom but also moral responsibility (both as commonly understood). Such a conclusion would seriously undermine our most fundamental notions of freedom, of justice and the presuppositions of our society and our law. I maintain the future does not yet exist to be known. If the future already exists and can be known (by god or by Laplace's demon) then free will (as commonly understood) is an illusion (albeit a persistent one). There is a matter of scope here. For instance it is virtually certain and true that the sun will run out fuel, become a red giant and engulf the earth so there are some certain determined things in the world but modern physics does not imply determinism at all levels of reality. When I wake up tomorrow morning, I will probably eat breakfast, I may have raisin bread, shredded wheat or toast. I do not know which. I maintain no one (not even god) knows which. It may even occur that I do not get breakfast, I may wake up late, there may be a family emergency, etc. Although I think the universe is highly ordered and highly predictable, I also think there are degrees of unpredictability (stochastic probability) and freedom. At the level of human decision making I see no evidence and no reason to presume "free will" does not exist. It is clear that there are always constraints on our freedom. We are constrained by the laws of physics and often by our conditioned behaviors. The question is whether there is any freedom at all. The difference between a little freedom and no freedom at all is all the difference in the world. The notion of free will (the ability to do otherwise) is one of what I would call hard core common sense assumptions about the nature of reality which everyone presupposes in practice (in living) even while denying it in theory (analytic philosophy). The denial of free will often stems from more deep seated metaphysical assumption about reality (materialism and determinism). Neither of these philosophical speculations (materialism or determinism) can be demonstrated to be "true". I think the burden of proof for both the assumption of divine omnipotence and for the denial of "free will" lies with those who make the assertion. It is an assumption which has no value in a pragmatic worldview. |
|
#
46218
Mon 30 Nov, 2009 09:03 pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
ACB wrote:
If you willed it, then you've exercised control over your choice, and you therefore have free will (as far as I understand "free will"). The cause of your will matters not. Someone licking an icecream cone could cause me to will the choice to go buy an icecream cone, but this doesn't mean I didn't have the choice not to buy an icecream cone. I use "will" here as a synonym for desire, choose, and have deliberate intention. |
|
#
46219
Mon 30 Nov, 2009 09:07 pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
[QUOTE=Zetherin;107145]Do you mean knowledge with certainty, or just knowledge? [/QUOTE]In this case, it doesn't matter. Knowledge doesn't imply certainty, but certainty implies knowledge. The primary difference between the two is fallibility. To have knowledge is to be fallible, and to be certain is to be infallible.
If God is infallible, then God is certain, but since certainty implies knowledge, it's also true that God knows--in this case: all knowing. ---------- Post added 11-30-2009 at 10:09 PM ---------- Zetherin;107150 wrote:
He's not making the argument. He said, "some have argued." |
|
#
46220
Mon 30 Nov, 2009 09:11 pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
fast;107168 wrote:
Yes, but I wasn't sure if he was speaking of God and his infallibility. Because a human could say he has knowledge of the future and not mean that he or she was certain. Quote:
I didn't say he was making the argument. I asked for an argument. |
