Freewill, Omniscience, and Branching Possibilities: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Freewill, Omniscience, and Branching Possibilities » Freewill, Omniscience, and Branching Possibilities

Freewill, Omniscience, and Branching Possibilities

Freewill, Omniscience, and Branching Possibilities

Norseman
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 10, 2004
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 53

Posted 08/27/04 - 12:47 AM:	#1
We've probably all heard that old "God knows everything that can happen, so his omnipotence doesn't interfere with freewill" and all the various analogies to describe it, such as branches on a tree (ergo the title). First, allow me to define the terms we're using here. To my knowledge, freewill is defined thus: The ability to choose your future, such that if we were to go back in time and repeat everything, it is possible you would not make the same choice, even if on both occasions you did not know what the future was. If you have a better definition I'd appreciate it, as that one sounds ridiculous to me. If you check dictionary.com, I think you'll find a suspicious, and irritating, lack of definition. The first definition (and only if you look soley in the American Heritage Dictionary) is as follows: American Heritage Dictionary @ "Freewill" wrote: Done of one's own accord; voluntary. That seems more like a definition for the absence of coercion than a definition of this rather mysterious "freewill". I'll stick with the definition I came up with unless someone else can provide something more suitable. Next... Omniscience is generally defined as the ability to know everything, however I think that's silly because it creates several paradoxes, among them, knowing something that isn't true, and knowing also that it's really true. If we we were to be more specific about omniscience, we might have a defintion more like "to know everything that is true" which I suspect we can all agree works better than some of the other, and sloppier, versions. Now, let us assume that by freewill we have branching possibilities, that somehow we don't choose consistently, and that really in a sense our will is random to create branches like this. If God knows everything true, does it not follow that God knows which branch is the future, and which branches will not take place? Now admittedly, if/when randomity gets involved with omniscience we will have paradoxes, but this one is that, if god really knows everything, god knows the true path of branches the future will take. Now, this is not to say that omniscience and freewill are entirely incompatible as I've only refuted one argument, but that the branching future argument does not adequetly explain the possibility of their co-existance.
"If Atheism is a religion, then health is a disease!" "A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle." "Jesus' last words on the cross were, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" hardly seem like the words of a man who planned it that way. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure there is something wrong here."

geoff23
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Location: Brighton, Sussex, England.
Total Topics: 85
Total Posts: 2650

Posted 08/27/04 - 03:00 AM:	#2
Norseman, It rather depends on whether you believe the future actually exists. If it doesn't exist, then God can stil be omniscient, even though He doesn't know which free will choice we are going to make. You have to define "omniscient" as "knowing everything that is knowable" rather than simply "knowing everything". God can still know everything that there is to be known even if he doesn't know what we are going to do with our free will. Even an omniscient being cannot be expected to know something which is fundamentally unknowable.
The poets did not win; the philosophers surrendered. (Umberto Eco)

Morrandir
Ich habe mich aufgehoben

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2004
Location: The Finnest Land
Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 2968

Posted 08/27/04 - 03:12 AM:	#3
Norseman, There is ten pages of this stuff here: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=9766 The discussion is ongoing even though some of us have left. You would be better of reading through the arguments (not all, they tend to repeat themselves for some particular reason that you will note soon enough) and posting there. What comes to omniscience, geoff here is right: omniscience should be defined as "knowing all truths", and more precisely: "if p is true, then an omniscient being knows that p". It does not mean God should know things that are not true (contradictions, for example). To give you enough motivation to check the thread, I hereby announce that at least three very good, different arguments were made that show that they are not incompatible. Of course, Moving Finger would disagree, and has disagreed, throughout the discussion.
Philosophy is disciplined bewilderment. A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty. http://www.beyondappearances.com

dreamweaver
Web we Weave

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 29, 2003
Location: London, UK
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2038

Posted 08/27/04 - 04:38 AM:	#4
[blue]Already a thread on this. Locked. [/blue]
Dos moi pou sto kai kino taen gaen. ~ Archimedes

This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.