Is omniscience compatible with human freedom?

@Zetherin,

I tried earlier to give my view in the way of an analogy. Imagine watching a film of your life after you have lived and died. Could you change it or just observe it? Now imagine, if it was possible for us to watch that film before you had lived it, as long as we only observe, it should allow your free will, your free will is intact.

Time and its consequences are far from clear. Imagine looking at your life as a panorama , being able to observe the complete sequence of events. The begining and the end would be seen as a whole and the temptation to judge would cease to be necessary. We acted as our life developed and we lived it to our ability.

@kennethamy,

I question whether the concept of Free Will makes sense in the first place. What is will if not the desire to something and what is freedom if not the absence of impediment?

Leaving omniscience out of the question, which is itself arguably unfathomable for a human being, I suggest we really look at this phrase "Free Will."

@xris,

xris;110324 wrote:

Now imagine, if it was possible for us to watch that film before you had lived it

That is what I am disputing. Is such a thing possible, even theoretically? The film analogy breaks down there, because such a thing can never happen in real life.

We need to ask:

1. Does the future already "exist" somehow? (Many people automatically assume it does - "time is an illusion" etc - but this is far from obvious.) If it does not, then it is currently nothing, so God does not need to know it in order to be omniscient.

2. If the future does already exist, does that imply predestination?

3. Is predestination compatible with free will?

@ACB,

ACB;110339 wrote:

That is what I am disputing. Is such a thing possible, even theoretically? The film analogy breaks down there, because such a thing can never happen in real life.

I have no clue what this even means.

Quote:

We need to ask:

1. Does the future already "exist" somehow? (Many people automatically assume it does - "time is an illusion" etc - but this is far from obvious.) If it does not, then it is currently nothing, so God does not need to know it in order to be omniscient.

What does it even mean to say that the future exists? Or that it doesn't?

To say that God, or whoever, knows the future means that God knows propositions about the future. The existence of 'the future' is irrelevant.

Quote:

3. Is predestination compatible with free will?

Maybe. Clarify what predestination means, first.

@ACB,

ACB;110339 wrote:

3. Is predestination compatible with free will?

Predestination is not compatible with free will. But how does that have anything to do with whether omniscience is compatible with free will?

---------- Post added 12-11-2009 at 07:44 PM ----------

xris;110324 wrote:

I tried earlier to give my view in the way of an analogy. Imagine watching a film of your life after you have lived and died. Could you change it or just observe it? Now imagine, if it was possible for us to watch that film before you had lived it, as long as we only observe, it should allow your free will, your free will is intact.

Time and its consequences are far from clear. Imagine looking at your life as a panorama , being able to observe the complete sequence of events. The begining and the end would be seen as a whole and the temptation to judge would cease to be necessary. We acted as our life developed and we lived it to our ability.

Why do you think that is a correct analogy? If it is like a film then yes, there is no free will. But so what? You still have to show it is like a film. All of these analogies (puppet show) fail, because there is not reason to think the analogies are correct.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;110355 wrote:

Predestination is not compatible with free will. But how does that have anything to do with whether omniscience is compatible with free will?

Why do you think that predestination is not compatible with free will?

@Emil,

Emil;110362 wrote:

Why do you think that predestination is not compatible with free will?

Predestination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@kennethamy,

I suppose the issue is whether omniscience implies predestination. But isn't omniscience a tricky concept for those that lack it?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;110369 wrote:

Predestination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's nice. But why do you believe it?

@Emil,

Emil;110377 wrote:

That's nice. But why do you believe it?

I did not say I believe predestination is true. I just said that predestination is inconsistent with free will.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;110380 wrote:

I did not say I believe predestination is true. I just said that predestination is inconsistent with free will.

Yes I know. I asked you why you think they are inconsistent.

@Emil,

Emil;110384 wrote:

Yes I know. I asked you why you think they are inconsistent.

Because, according to predestination, God foreordained the future, and nothing but what he foreordained can occur. We are talking of God's power here, not His knowledge.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;110355 wrote:

Predestination is not compatible with free will. But how does that have anything to do with whether omniscience is compatible with free will?

---------- Post added 12-11-2009 at 07:44 PM ----------

Why do you think that is a correct analogy? If it is like a film then yes, there is no free will. But so what? You still have to show it is like a film. All of these analogies (puppet show) fail, because there is not reason to think the analogies are correct.

If you write a book , its your story no one else can claim it for themselves. If you make a film of your life no one can claim your free will was jeopardized by the making of it. Are you saying, because of the possibility that we can have preview of this film, it destroys the notion of free will? Knowledge of an event that will happen, is not the same as predetermining an occurrence by your influence.

Paradoxes are not allowed in the sequences of time , creator or not, you cant change the laws of nature.

@xris,

xris;110488 wrote:

If you write a book , its your story no one else can claim it for themselves. If you make a film of your life no one can claim your free will was jeopardized by the making of it. Are you saying, because of the possibility that we can have preview of this film, it destroys the notion of free will? Knowledge of an event that will happen, is not the same as predetermining an occurrence by your influence.

Paradoxes are not allowed in the sequences of time , creator or not, you cant change the laws of nature.

Were you replying to my post? My question was why you think that the analogy of a film with prescribed parts is analogous to a person's life?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;110519 wrote:

Were you replying to my post? My question was why you think that the analogy of a film with prescribed parts is analogous to a person's life?

Yes, if your life could be filmed in its entirety,whats your objection to it being viewed prior to your life. Not the need for it to be possible but the principle that it evokes. I silent observer of events, at the time or prior to its occurrence, is not breaking any laws of free will. If we watch a film of past events, can we influence the ending? Its only down to timing.

@xris,

xris;110521 wrote:

Yes, if your life could be filmed in its entirety,whats your objection to it being viewed prior to your life. Not the need for it to be possible but the principle that it evokes. I silent observer of events, at the time or prior to its occurrence, is not breaking any laws of free will. If we watch a film of past events, can we influence the ending? Its only down to timing.

Oh, but that is very different from the idea that before it is filmed what a person does is prescribed like a part in the film. One film is about the past. That is theoretically possible. But what makes you think that is true of the future? That there is a film we have not yet viewed?

@ACB,

ACB;110339 wrote:

That is what I am disputing. Is such a thing possible, even theoretically? The film analogy breaks down there, because such a thing can never happen in real life.

We need to ask:

1. Does the future already "exist" somehow? (Many people automatically assume it does - "time is an illusion" etc - but this is far from obvious.) If it does not, then it is currently nothing, so God does not need to know it in order to be omniscient.

2. If the future does already exist, does that imply predestination?

3. Is predestination compatible with free will?

ACB,

Whether or not any of this is plausible is an entirely different topic.

The point of this thread, however, was to see if the two notions were consistent.

And why wouldn't predestination be compatible? Again, refer back to my post, #100.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;110522 wrote:

Oh, but that is very different from the idea that before it is filmed what a person does is prescribed like a part in the film. One film is about the past. That is theoretically possible. But what makes you think that is true of the future? That there is a film we have not yet viewed?

The analogy of a film that is of the future, it gives record of the future. I have said its not a matter of the possibility but the concept.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;110524 wrote:

ACB,

Whether or not any of this is plausible is an entirely different topic.

The point of this thread, however, was to see if the two notions were consistent.

And why wouldn't predestination be compatible? Again, refer back to my post, #100.

Predestination or omniscience. Predestination says that whatever happens is already foreordained, and that even if someone wanted to do otherwise he could not. It predestination is religious fatalism. But omniscience is not fatalism. Fatalism is inconsistent with free will, and so is religious fatalism. C

---------- Post added 12-12-2009 at 10:47 AM ----------

xris;110525 wrote:

The analogy of a film that is of the future, it gives record of the future. I have said its not a matter of the possibility but the concept.

But there is absolutely no reason the think that the future is fixed as the past is. Characters in a film have no free will. They play their parts. People don't.

@kennethamy,

The future may not be fixed in terms that we cant predetermine. If we have the ability to exert free will and that free will is seen to be done , why is the ability to observe that free will before it occurs in our time frame illogical?

Philosophy Forum

Is omniscience compatible with human freedom?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know