Do We Have Free Will If God Is Omniscient?

[theriddler876]

hmnn so I got into an argument the other day about wether or not we have free will, and I came up with if you believe we have free will, we would have to deny that there is an omnipotent omnicient God.

assume there is a God and there is no dobut, (please don't be stupid and start arguing abouit the exsistence of God, this isn't about that) so just assume he does exsist

and all knowing all mighty God knows all our actions before we make them, so God could get on his God computer and print out the "script" of anyones life, so he could look at the script and go, bob will come to a fork in the road and turn left, so are we merely actors following the script, playing out our roles in the "play of life" and if we were, we really have no choice, we are just following the script... gives a new meaning to "All the World's a Stage. ...and the men and women merely players"

also then there's miss cleo who claims that she can "read" the "script"

 

[Felgar]

Hmm, I don't think so. Does simply knowing the outcome preclude choice?

First of all I don't think you can assume the existence of God without also accepting the Bible (ok, unless another Religion's God) and the Bible explains that we have choice yet God is all-knowing.

Being mortal creatures that are confined within the limits of time it's very hard for us to understand how a choice can truly be made with the outcome known, but I believe that it can be. Philosophers have struggled with this for centuries; it's not like I'm going to stumble on a massive revelation and lay it all out for you in one thread. :)

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

A simple answer to me would be that God knows all POSSIBILITIES. And then, knowing the laws of physics, chemistry, psychology etc he can predict us with complete accuracy, and thus he knows all PROBABILITIES.

Super-simple example: You're cat's hungry. You put a bowl of cat food on the floor. You know the cat can either choose to eat, or choose not to eat. You know the cat's hungry and will choose to eat, but that doesn't mean the cat didn't choose. You never forced the cat to eat, never took away it's choice, you just knew in advance that it would choose to eat.

I'll tell you one thing, if I knew everything, I'd get pretty darn bored... I'd end up having to pass the time by creating worlds full of people who didn't listen to me...

 

[olde drunk]

I'll tell you one thing, if I knew everything, I'd get pretty darn bored... I'd end up having to pass the time by creating worlds full of people who didn't listen to me...

Isn't that what happened??

Big world of difference tween knowing all probabilities and experiencing those probabilities.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[chauncey]

The paradox.

hmnn so I got into an argument the other day about wether or not we have free will, and I came up with if you believe we have free will, we would have to deny that there is an omnipotent omnicient God.

assume there is a God and there is no dobut, (please don't be stupid and start arguing abouit the exsistence of God, this isn't about that) so just assume he does exsist

and all knowing all mighty God knows all our actions before we make them, so God could get on his God computer and print out the "script" of anyones life, so he could look at the script and go, bob will come to a fork in the road and turn left, so are we merely actors following the script, playing out our roles in the "play of life" and if we were, we really have no choice, we are just following the script... gives a new meaning to "All the World's a Stage. ...and the men and women merely players"

also then there's miss cleo who claims that she can "read" the "script"

hmmm... We are so anthropocentric that we believe God has endowed us with the brain compacity to understand his true nature and omnipotence. Form a panentheistic point of view, God's nature is both fixed and constantly evolving. His nature is beyond our understanding; it's paradoxical. I think as imperfect beings, we should accept our ignorance regarding our ability to understand paradoxes. In the human reality, contradiction is a fallacy. In total reality, contradiction is sensical and works. This is a physics forum, people should know that.

 

[hypnagogue]

First of all I don't think you can assume the existence of God without also accepting the Bible (ok, unless another Religion's God) and the Bible explains that we have choice yet God is all-knowing.

You absolutely can assume the existence of God without also accepting the Bible. We are not talking about God in the Christian sense, or in the sense of any religion's definition of God. (In fact, such religious discussion https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=15840 on Physics Forums.) 'God' here is meant only in the philosophical sense of a posulated being that has certain properties (usually including omniscience and omnipotence).

 

[Felgar]

You absolutely can assume the existence of God without also accepting the Bible. We are not talking about God in the Christian sense, or in the sense of any religion's definition of God. (In fact, such religious discussion https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=15840 on Physics Forums.) 'God' here is meant only in the philosophical sense of a posulated being that has certain properties (usually including omniscience and omnipotence).

So there's no place to actually talk about religion on the forum, despite so many questions about the nature of God and the possibility of his existence? Given God is central to all religion, I would think it pretty applicable - though possibly not in this area of the forum.

About your point, without a frame of reference (any frame of reference) I don't think you'll get anywhere because it would be hard enough to even define what God is. Now, we could talk about various defined gods, (Christian, Greek Mythology, Roman Mythology, etc.) and at least you have a starting point and from there you can discuss the nature of that god vs the nature of the universe, nature of human beings, etc. But something as loosely defined as "a being with properties of omniscience and omnipotence" provides very little basis upon which to form conclusions, in my opinion. And further to that, without having an ideology to tie the discussion back to, how would any of the conclusions that were formed have any applicability in the world in which we live?

 

[russ_watters]

So there's no place to actually talk about religion on the forum, despite so many questions about the nature of God and the possibility of his existence? Given God is central to all religion, I would think it pretty applicable - though possibly not in this area of the forum.

Well that's just it - its religion itself that we won't discuss here. Obviously, threads like this have religous implications, but theriddler is right that the question of whether God exists doesn't really have any relevance here: we can, indeed assume he exists for the sake of a discussion of freewill and leave the specifics of religion out of it.

Anyway, I think you have the answer. To put it another way, does watching a movie and then telling someone else how it ends mean you wrote the script? Of course not. The existence of an omipotent, omniscient god does not necessarily preclude freewill (since he's omnipotent, he could, of course, rescind freewill).

 

[Felgar]

Well that's just it - its religion itself that we won't discuss here. Obviously, threads like this have religous implications, but theriddler is right that the question of whether God exists doesn't really have any relevance here: we can, indeed assume he exists for the sake of a discussion of freewill and leave the specifics of religion out of it.

I guess it will just take time to learn where the line is between discussing "religious implications" and "religion itself." Sure for this particular discussion we can make an assumption (albeit one that I feel pretty much makes the discussion irrelevant) but could we start another discussion with the assumption that the Mars God of War exists, or that the Christian God exists? I'm obviously new here so please have patience while I'm learning the forum rules...

 

[olde drunk]

I have no authority here, but if you want to discuss a christian god, go to a christian website; hindu to a hindu site, etc...

regardless of which god or no god you accept, think out side that box and expand the subject being discussed.

are we simply characters in a book, play, psycho-drama that have been allowed to run free into the universe? do we have to follow the script? OR, can we ad-lib?

IMHO, all possibilities or probabilities exist as a potential experience. I have the freewill to actualize the experience that i want. If the viewer can influence a QT event, just think what power the doer/creator of the event exerts.

are we co-creators with the limited freewill of a closed system? (we can only chose those options that comply with the accepted laws of physicality)

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

what if creation is a byproduct of consciousness? "i think therefore It is" whatever "it" may be. but then i suppose we'd have to define consciousness.
how about "free thought"? i like it.
in that event, free will is a product of consciousness.. "i think therefore i choose" to remove free will, you'd have to remove consciousness, remove thinking.

"Great minds think alike." - anon
"If everybody's thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking." - anon

 

[Felgar]

It seems to me that you'd have to exist before you could think. So existence could not be a by-product of consciousness. Plus rocks, exist and don't think. And I'd argue that insects and animals lack consciousness too.

I do agree with the 2nd part, that free will is a product of consciousness. Something motivated by free actions (like artwork maybe) I think would only ever be produced by sentient, conscious beings.

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

well i personally won't argue that insects are conscious, but I'm sure somebody out there thinks so. but that's neither here nor there. what i was suggesting is that my reality exists because I am conscious. that by altering my consiousness, i can alter my reality. something along the lines of a cosmic placebo. because "God" is conscious, i exist through his consciousness. a PERFECT illustration of this would be the book "Man of Two Worlds" by Frank and Brian Herbert. The book depicts an alien race (Dreens) capable of creating universes through simple conscious effort. but if the dreen who created a universe dies, that universe he created disappears because his consciousness is not there to keep it alive any more.

it's a similar concept to hindu beliefs in Shiva's cosmic dream.

 

[Impossible?]

I think humans are so wrapped up in being more powerful than other animals, that we completely disregard the option that they could have worked things out as well. Animals are concious, we see this in our pets decided affection. as animal brains are made up differently to humans, to use a hypocritical term, they could be thinking on a different level, understand things more simply, and work out, not theories as such, but ideas and use there ideas or assumptions predominantly in every day life.

 

[Impossible?]

I think there is a fine line between reality and normality. We presume that because what happens to us is so normal, that it must be real. What is normality? What is reality?

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

I think humans are so wrapped up in being more powerful than other animals, that we completely disregard the option that they could have worked things out as well.

well there's some interesting studies going on with porpoises and dolphins being intelligent, but i think for now it's safe to assume that we have one thing over the rest of the animal kingdom. Love. your dog loves you because you feed it. same with your cat. in the end with animals all their "devotion" and "affection" is based upon "this guy feeds me". not so with humanity. we have the capacity to love without reason. to feel devotion without rationality. you learn about all sorts of bad cases of this when you study psychology, but I've met dozens of couples who've created the most fantastic lives together from the same feelings. in the end i think it's our capacity for love that makes us human.

now as far as reality goes... read simulacra and simulation by jean baudrillard. or watch the matrix. or meditate. whatever you choose, it's all an illusion anyway. so said einstein ;)

 

[RingoKid]

If I were omniscient and omnipotent i would exercise my free will and choose not to get involved in any of my creations evolution, in much the same way as a parent i choose not to vicariously live through my children

 

[theriddler876]

Super-simple example: You're cat's hungry. You put a bowl of cat food on the floor. You know the cat can either choose to eat, or choose not to eat. You know the cat's hungry and will choose to eat, but that doesn't mean the cat didn't choose. You never forced the cat to eat, never took away it's choice, you just knew in advance that it would choose to eat.

you don't really know, you gather your evidence, and you infer that the cat's is going to eat, and those infrences can get you up to a 99% accuracy, but with God, he would know things to a 100% accuracy, he would know the course of your life even before you were born, so he knew all the coure of you life before you were born, so are you just followign this pre known course under the preception of free will?

 

[abitofnothingleft]

i forget who it was that said it...it may have been marx...but to be honest i can't tell you...who said that humans have no free will. everything is reliant on another thing. things around you are what influence you to do something. ultimately, the decisions you make are those you make, not because you have free will but because you are influenced by things around you.

ex./ you are sitting at a desk and see a pen there. you decide to play with the pen. that decision was influenced because the pen was there. had the pen not been there then you wouldn't have even thought of playing with it.

p.s.~i'll find out the exact quote and who said it when i can find my book!

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

but with God, he would know things to a 100% accuracy, he would know the course of your life even before you were born, so he knew all the coure of you life before you were born, so are you just followign this pre known course under the preception of free will?

so what's the point in living? certainly an omnipotent and omniscient god could think of something better to do with his time than write a script like this world. knowing everything in advance would get so boring mundane, what point would there be in preplanned universe? while we're stating opinions i make it mine that any god would use his/her/its omnipotence to forget a few things just to make his own life interesting

"It has occurred to me more than once that holy boredom is good and sufficient reason for the invention of free will." - Frank Herbert, God Emperor of Dune

 

[theriddler876]

yes but when you go into that, you would have a god that would cut his own power, it's very much like the question could god make an object so heavy he himself couln't move it, also that would imply that God is succeptable to boredom

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

"What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world." --Albert Einstein

 

[Philocrat]

hmnn so I got into an argument the other day about wether or not we have free will, and I came up with if you believe we have free will, we would have to deny that there is an omnipotent omnicient God.

assume there is a God and there is no dobut, (please don't be stupid and start arguing abouit the exsistence of God, this isn't about that) so just assume he does exsist

and all knowing all mighty God knows all our actions before we make them, so God could get on his God computer and print out the "script" of anyones life, so he could look at the script and go, bob will come to a fork in the road and turn left, so are we merely actors following the script, playing out our roles in the "play of life" and if we were, we really have no choice, we are just following the script... gives a new meaning to "All the World's a Stage. ...and the men and women merely players"

also then there's miss cleo who claims that she can "read" the "script"

Not only that alone...above all, it would throw all the spooky labels usually associated with, or attributed to, God completely out of the window of Logic and clear thinking. The most notorious and intellectually spooky types of such labels are those invented by Rene Descartes, such as Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Perfect, Creator, Judge, etc,,etc. What is often naively neglected in all the arguments for the existence of God or Supreme Being, is that all these labels are fundamentally abbreviations of Deductive Arguments. In fact, there is no single label that anyone can choose to label God that has no deductive implications. Philosophers of all ages have always known this and, usually, many of them systematically avoid this in many ways. Some just remain silent about it. Some turn to rational methods to escape it. And there are those who just straightforwardly declare God non-existent altogether on the basis of the underlying logical implications of these terms.

My own personal examination of all these labels inevitably led to startling conclusions that reverse the underlying logic of these labels. And that is the conclusion that the possibility or existence of God is not completely ruled out by the logic of these labels. Yes, admittedly, the catalogue of logical inconsistency is undisputedly huge, yet the idea of a Supreme being or God is not completely overthrown. Hence, the famous maxim in philosophy that 'God is incompatible with Logic' is false. On the basis of my own detailed examination of these labels, I have gone down on record for claiming that not only is God wholly compatible with Logic, but also, and most importantly, God is blameless of all errors and defects (potential or actual) in the causal and relational structure of the world.

At the same time, the religious institutions must do their own bit to clarify things further. The most valuable thing they must be prepared to do is the willingness and genuine effort to revise and update their thinking, and continue to do so, via clearly defined intellectual scholarship of a multi-disciplinary nature.

OUTSTANDING PROBLEMS

1) THE PROBLEM OF MIXING RELGION WITH POLITICS.

There is nothing wrong in using religion to shape and polish your social and political institutions, but you should not complain if someone else does the same in the tiny planet of ours that we all share. You are naturally empowered to ‘religiousise your social and political institutions provided in the end what you have done allows you to successfully interact and live peacefully with your neighbours. If what you have done does not permit you to share this world with others, then its time for soul-searching. Intelligence and clear thinking suggest that you must return to your drawing board to find out where you have gone wrong. You must be prepared to revise your thinking to permit you in the end to share this world and live peacefully with others.

2) THE PROBLEM OF RECONCILING RELGION WITH OTHER DISCIPLINES

The naïve belief that religion has nothing to do, or that it is incompatible, with everything else that we do, or simply with other intellectual disciplines is one other important problem that sooner or later we will have to collectively confront and deal with in a civilised way. To say that we can accomplish this by wars and domination is a non-starter. The world is full of clever people who can think, talk and write clearly. To act and behave as if we have no such people in every nation of this planet is the greatest shame of the 21st century.

 

[Philocrat]

FREE WIIL...what about it? Well, my analysis of the labels with which we habitually label God, does not only fundamentally reverse the underlying logic of the labels, but also, and most importantly, it renders free will wholly compatible with everything else - the human reality, God's orginal, subsequent and final intentions, our choices of causal and mutational pathways inclusive. The most startling discovery from this is that the human freedom or freedom of the will is entirely indedendent of our modes of interpretation (determinism or non-determinism), but rather it is wholly dependent upon the consistency in the logical and relational structures of the causal and mutational pathways. I looked at several of these pathways and, amazingly, total and complete freedom of action and being is possible in every single one of them provided you logically and quantitatively satisfy specific causal and relational conditions attached to each one of them.

 

[Felgar]

Well that all went pretty much over my head Philocrat, but it sounds good. :) Have you published anything on the subject for further details?

 

[theriddler876]

well what I think it comes down to, is if anyone can know with 100% accuracy your actions before you make them, then we have no free will. and an omnicient anything would know with 100% accuracy, be it miss cleo, or God. but just as long as someone knows, we are just following the plan as to what he or she already knows.

 

[nickdanger]

well what I think it comes down to, is if anyone can know with 100% accuracy your actions before you make them, then we have no free will. and an omnicient anything would know with 100% accuracy, be it miss cleo, or God. but just as long as someone knows, we are just following the plan as to what he or she already knows.

I think the general problem in arguing that free will negates determinism in the world is that our conception of free will needs to be modified. Let's assume that the world is deterministic, forgetting about quantum mechanical arguments of uncertainty for the time being.

We can consider that beyond instincts we are born with, we go through our lives 'writing' to our memories the outcomes of our actions and whether those actions obtained a good or bad result. We find we like ice cream and we write that to our memory. We may not like our work necessarily but we write it in as necessity. We continue this way making continuous rankings. We would never go get ice cream instead of going to work. But we might find we can stop for ice cream assessing whether we will be late for work and if so, is it worth it. This goes on, so-on-and-so-forth ranking and comparing past outcomes and future possibilities.

Now there are two things I would suggest we establish:
1. We need to admit that we make these comparisons and decisions within a 'physical' mind that is subject to 'physically' delivering our decisions. That is we don't think that the entire process is based on processing the decision through a physical system, subject to classical laws and then somehow just before the decision (let's say up to the point the last electron is delivered into position) that there is a metaphysical and non-classical 'delivery' of the decision. To say otherwise is to suggest we would make a decision completely without reason; the outcomes would have nothing to do with what we are thinking. So we 'freely' made the decision, but it was subject to a lot of written data about what we think is good for us and what we think is bad. Were we forced to the decision? Yes, I think it must be completely deterministic, but this is precisely the way we like it, we are happy to have it forced into a direction that satisfies our sensibilities.
2. All our decisions are deterministic - Would you ever make a decision by letting your logic operate so that the outcome is not from a set of physical steps as described. That is comparing what is written in you memory? Actually, I would say no. We are incapable of delivering an answer that is not from 'physical' logic that is determined stepwise. That many outcomes were posssible before delivering the decision does not refute the determinism. Only one outcome was delivered, therefore it went down a determined path, regardless of perturbations along the way (they are actually part of the determinism). No matter how much we microscopically divide and look more closely at the physical processes, we never get to a point that something metaphysical occurs in the decision making. Anything that was part of the process, must have played out in the physical plane of reality, regardless of where it came from.

So is free will eliminated. No, it is just the way we like it. We are simply restricted from getting up in the morning and deciding we want to live on alpha-centauri today along with many other eliminated possibilities.

Free will is just as we like it, just not everyway we would have it: Don't we expect that all physical things will work deterministically and our mind is part of those 'physical things'?
- the Earth in its specific orbit about the sun gives us stable environment
- Our gas stove predictably burns propane to heat our food...we don't wake up and find laws governing controlled flammability of the propane have disappeared
- Our bodies including our heart and all vital organs work predictably and deterministically. We would not have it any other way.

Why then would we expect the determinism to be repealed with the processes working in our minds as we make decisions? To suggest it is not this way is to suggest there is a step that is metaphysical in our decision processes when in fact our free will is delivering an answer just the way we like it, physically deterministic. There is no other process that can play out in the physical plane.

This was the long way of saying, if God knows all your actions and they are predetermined, but you do not know them, you still have free will just the way you like it. You are happy that you are prevented from living your day on alpha-centauri, yet concerning all the other possible directions in your normal life that you have chosen, it's difficult to see that you are equally happy with the decisions you were prevented from making; it's why you made the decision that you did. Again, you have free will just as you like it, just not everyway you would have it.

 

[theriddler876]

hmnn

well what if you just trick youself into thinking that's the way you like it. to put it simply, if you are stranded in forest and you come to a fork, you can turn left or you can turn right. and both of the paths look Identical, how would "what we like" or "how we like it" come into play here?... now say I am all knowing, and I know you will go right. are you just following what I already know? I being the playwrite and you a scriptless actor under the illusion of free will?

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

what nick is saying is simply that past circumstances influence every decision we make, thus our decisions are predermined by our past, which has a certain element of truth to it, except that part of what makes us human is our ability to act irrationally. we can, and do make decisions that go completely against every logical faculty we posess. whether we made these irrational decsions based upon past experience is anyone's guess.

personally, i think free will is self evident. it makes for a great "what if" discussion, but in the end, choice is ours, unaffected by foreknowledge. as we understand physics, we KNOW with great certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow. why? because there is enough atomic fuel in the sun to last another 5 billion years, there are no geologic activities that will completely blow up the earth, and even if we blew ourselves up the sun would still appear over the horizon tomorrow morning. but knowing this, do we make the sun rise? or does it happen anyway? I'm not implying that the sun has a choice in whether or not it rises, I'm saying that our foreknowledge doesn't change the outcome. knowing makes no difference, so then if "God" knows, it makes no difference, we still choose and still live how we want, albeit with the influences of our past. even though i know the sun will rise, i don't write the script of the universe.
a good experiment on how our past influences our decisions would be on amnesiacs. i think it'd be interesting to see how their forgotten memories influence the choices they make subconsciously. but that's another story. :)

 

[juju]

Hi,

Free will is an illusion.

The only freedom you have is to fight to attain the freedom you should have. This existence in which we were born is just a state of total war to attain the freedom we should have had in the first place.

juju

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Free will is an illusion.

The only freedom you have is to fight to attain the freedom you should have. This existence in which we were born is just a state of total war to attain the freedom we should have had in the first place.

um... first there's a BIG difference between "Freedom" and "Free will". second, you state that free will is an illusion, yet offer no evidence to back it up. as this is a physics forum, most of us on here would be unwilling to accept any argument as valid without sufficient evidence.
also, considering this is a philosophy thread, our concern for the answer (do we have free will? yes or no?) is not nearly as important as the thought processes that lead us to our conclusions.

 

[juju]

Hi,

To clarify. Everything I said was a result of my life experience. That is the only proof I need.

Free will and freedom are essentially identical. If you have no free will you have no freedom. As far as I am concerned the only free will I have is to fight for the free will and freedom I should have.

Philosophy is for those who don't believe in hell!
Religion is for those who do believe in hell!
Spirituality is for those who have been there in hell!

I have been there.

juju

 

[theriddler876]

Free will and freedom are essentially identical. If you have no free will you have no freedom. As far as I am concerned the only free will I have is to fight for the free will and freedom I should have.


juju

what are you talking about?? free will and freedom have nothing to do with each other, are you saying that say russians when the USSR was still together, or chinese or cuban people have no free will cause they have no freedom? what if a tyrant came into power and took everyone's freedom? by your reasoning we would not have the free will to rise up and rebel

 

[theriddler876]

personally, i think free will is self evident. it makes for a great "what if" discussion, but in the end, choice is ours, unaffected by foreknowledge. as we understand physics, we KNOW with great certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow. why? because there is enough atomic fuel in the sun to last another 5 billion years, there are no geologic activities that will completely blow up the earth, and even if we blew ourselves up the sun would still appear over the horizon tomorrow morning. but knowing this, do we make the sun rise? or does it happen anyway? I'm not implying that the sun has a choice in whether or not it rises, I'm saying that our foreknowledge doesn't change the outcome. knowing makes no difference, so then if "God" knows, it makes no difference, we still choose and still live how we want, albeit with the influences of our past. even though i know the sun will rise, i don't write the script of the universe.
:)

that's diffrent as well, you have no way of being sure that the sun will rise, you infer from knowledge of stars and fuel that it will rise and keep burning, and from that you will know to say 99.99999999999999 percent acuracy but nothing that we know is certain, we only make infrences which have a percent error, like when I use a stapler I'm pretty sure it's going to work, but it could aways get stuck, and the things that we can get to the least amount of possible error we deem as laws of the universe, like droping an object, you know it's going to fall you could even say it will always 100% will fall, on Earth that is, so does it really have a choice of falling?