johndavid316

Then if Joey does not have free will, this makes absolutely no sense at all discussing free will. You are creating a circle game which I don't have time for. Off to work ... What circle game? I simply posed the question, created a logical argument for the two words not being able coexist in that universe and you disagreed with my logic. I fully explained my logic, and when I did, you questioned my motivation. There is no circle here. I was wondering if anyone could come up with a logical counter argument, which, so far, no one has. If you agree with the logical argument, can't you at least say that you agree with it, even if you don't want to accept the potential meaning that it could have in a non-hypothetical universe? I am NOT trying to say that it does, and have gone over that already, but so far no one has come up with any logical counter argument to mine, but no one has agreed with me either. You can't just disagree with something because you don't like it. I didn't like it when my dog died, but that doesn't mean that I walk around saying that it didn't happen.

I don't have a motivation. You're explaining this wrong to your self, you must remember that in my example, Joey's god did not specify whether or not Joey had free will. There are two answers to the question I asked you. First, no, Joey cannot choose B because his god cannot be wrong, therefore he has multiple choices but could only choose one, and because of this, Joey has no free will. The other answer is yes, Joey can choose B. However if he does, then his god is not omniscient since he was wrong, and Joey DOES have free will, in this situation. What you have presented is that if Joey decides to choose B, then his god would have known he was going to choose it. This does not in any way disprove my point. Since my logical statement included that his god knew he was going to choose A, you simply reversed the statement, saying that his god knew he was going to choose B. That is fine, however, if his god knows that he is going to choose B, he cannot choose A, because then his god was wrong. It has absolutely nothing to do with the time of choosing. When I state that his god knows the answer will be A, it is the final result, the final answer, it has nothing at all to do with previous intent or the time of choosing. With that said, I will present what you said in a logical statement form. If god knows Joey will pick B and cannot be wrong, then joey must pick B. This is true.

Ok, very quickly, I am going ask you a question that will either prove your point or prove my point. Joey's god cannot be wrong, and has foreknowledge of the future. Joey is presented with choice A and B. Joey's god knows Joey will pick A. Can Joey pick B?

And what exactly is your motivation for doing so? People don't just have "intellectual conversations" without a goal in mind. I am curous about that myself. My suspicion is to cause doubt that we have a free will. I do believe that John leans toward predestination theory. John, are you a Calvinist? I was raised Lutheran.

Sorry I didn't answer your last question, God works by foreknowledge.

I'm going to walk you through this step by step. First of all, you say "God knows the beginning from the end due to God not being bound by time. He knows because He has already been there." That is fine. I can agree with that. However if God knows because he has already been there then the future is predetermined, which, in and of itself makes free will impossible. The next thing you say is "A person does have a choice." I am not arguing that, in fact, I agree with that. I am not arguing whether or not someone has a choice, I am arguing whether or not they can have free will with an omniscient god. "Let's say if God knows a person loves the color blue, and presents this person with all the colors created and asks them to choose their favorite color, the person still has a choice." This is true, the person does have a choice. However in order to have free will, he must be able to choose any of the choices according to his will. Since Joey's god is omniscient, he knows what Joey will choose and cannot be wrong. Even though Joey is given multiple choices, Joey can only choose one. That demonstrates that he does not have free will. It has nothing to do with the outcome from Joey's perspective. Joey thinks he has a choice, but he must necessarily chose a predetermined choice. Joey is experiencing an illusion of free will. "Omniscience means having infinite knowledge or understanding." I agree. "God knew what the choice would be." I agree "Because He knew does not negate that fact that a person has a choice." This is true, Joey had two choices. However in order for Joey's god to be omniscient, he must necessarily choose the choice that his god knew he would choose. Did that help you understand it better? And lastly, "Do you believe people have the free will to chose salvation?" I presented this argument that omniscience cannot coexist with free will as a way to explore a logical paradox. This is why I came up with a hypothetical universe. The Bible says that people have the free will to choose salvation, so I believe that they do. Obviously knowledge of God and His Word transcends the logic of man. But while we are still men, I find it interesting to discuss things such as this. Thank you for your reply. Omniscience does not mean that Joey did not have a choice, as you are saying, but that the result of the choice is known. You are not making much sense. It seems to me that you are trying to prove that free will does not exist if God is God and I completely disagree. God did not make Joey choose one or the other. He just knew which one would be chosen. Do you think God predestines or does He work by foreknowledge? Lets straighten this out first. We are talking about Joey's god, right? In this case, as I have gone over in my proof, this is the logical statement. If Joey's god knows what Joey will choose, and cannot be wrong, then Joey cannot choose anything else but what god knows he will choose. Free will is not the idea of having choices, but the being able to choose any of them. Think of a magician, he asks you to, "pick a card, any card." The magician knows what card you're going to pick, he cannot be wrong (or the trick wont work, but for the sake of the argument lets say he can never be wrong.) He gives you 52 choices, but you are only going to pick one. Can anybody argue that you are using your free will in this situation? Now, I understand that in this scenario, the magician is forcing a card, but that isn't whats deciding whether or not you're applying free will. What decides that is whether or not you have the ability to choose another card, which, since the magician can never be wrong, you do not. However, the reason why it feels like a magic trick is because you were given the illusion of free will. You feel as if you picked a card by yourself, and now he is only going to guess right 1/52 times...but he always gets it right! Similarly, in Joey's universe, Joey's god cannot be wrong, therefore, regardless of whether or not Joey is being forced to choose something, Joey can only choose the choice that his god knows he will choose. Therefore he does not have free will. Also it said in my proof that if he DID choose the an option that his god didn't know he would choose, then his god is not omniscient, and Joey does have free will. That is why, in that hypothetical universe, the two cannot coexist.

Your posts would be a LOT easier to read if you used the 'quote' feature, JohnDavid. It's hard to know what you are posting, or what was posted by someone else, when it's all mixed together. I don't see why you don't understand what OneLight is telling you. God is outside of space and time; we have free will, we can choose for ourselves but God (because he is not in this dimension) knows what we will choose. It's simple really. I do understand that that is the way it works with our God. But simply because of the nature of the two words I wanted to present a hypothetical universe that did not include the bible so I could discuss the nature of the two words. Now that we've agreed that in my hypothetical universe, the two cannot coexist, I will say this, as I have said before. Hebrews 6:18 It was impossible for God to lie. God is not bound by our logic. God cannot lie. If God says he is omniscient and gave us free will, then, he did. That is not hard to understand. Also remember that in the hypothetical universe, Joey's god only said he was omniscient, not that Joey had free will, and that was how he differed from our God.

Why? What is your purpose? By earthly logic - which doesn't apply to the spiritual realm. Because God's wisdom is works differently than man's logic. The Bible is full or paradoxes. So? Why? You keep asking why, so I am going to quote myself. "I presented this argument that omniscience cannot coexist with free will as a way to explore a logical paradox. This is why I came up with a hypothetical universe." Is it wrong to try to have an intellectual conversation here?

Um. you have shown your weakness here, the Multi-verse Schroedinger cat theory? Parallel universes etc split from other reality's. I understand this concept rather well, but it still leaves the question were did it all come from? This is not a "Creation Theory" again as Wyguy said Nice smokescreen, It does make me wonder, where you the only person you agree with is an acknowledged atheist. So as far as is atheism a religion. No not be strict definition. Do they sometimes engage in behavior that have all the trappings of religion, yes. I have even seen them try to pass out "tracts" to prove there is no god and go around to tell people about their lack of belief in god. Atheistic missionary's? For instance Richard Dawkins has gone on the attack on God to prove to others that there is no God. He will even admit Aliens created life before God. As far as what the Bible says about this </h2>

That is why I made my hypothetical universe, so that it was free from the restrictions of the God of the Bible. Secondly, I made a very sound, logical argument on why the two cannot coexist. The logic does work, as opposed to the physics, where the equations literally stop working. Where the logic doesn't fit is with the Bible, and I can explain the paradox there. This is, however why I created a hypothetical universe without the Bible so that I could make it work. The reason why the logic doesn't work when applied to the Bible is because God said that he is omniscient AND that he gave man free will. Obviously, then, it breaks down. But I was using the two terms in a universe where Joey's god never mentioned free will and we had to logically explore whether it was possible.

I'm going to walk you through this step by step. First of all, you say "God knows the beginning from the end due to God not being bound by time. He knows because He has already been there." That is fine. I can agree with that. However if God knows because he has already been there then the future is predetermined, which, in and of itself makes free will impossible. The next thing you say is "A person does have a choice." I am not arguing that, in fact, I agree with that. I am not arguing whether or not someone has a choice, I am arguing whether or not they can have free will with an omniscient god. "Let's say if God knows a person loves the color blue, and presents this person with all the colors created and asks them to choose their favorite color, the person still has a choice." This is true, the person does have a choice. However in order to have free will, he must be able to choose any of the choices according to his will. Since Joey's god is omniscient, he knows what Joey will choose and cannot be wrong. Even though Joey is given multiple choices, Joey can only choose one. That demonstrates that he does not have free will. It has nothing to do with the outcome from Joey's perspective. Joey thinks he has a choice, but he must necessarily chose a predetermined choice. Joey is experiencing an illusion of free will. "Omniscience means having infinite knowledge or understanding." I agree. "God knew what the choice would be." I agree "Because He knew does not negate that fact that a person has a choice." This is true, Joey had two choices. However in order for Joey's god to be omniscient, he must necessarily choose the choice that his god knew he would choose. Did that help you understand it better? And lastly, "Do you believe people have the free will to chose salvation?" I presented this argument that omniscience cannot coexist with free will as a way to explore a logical paradox. This is why I came up with a hypothetical universe. The Bible says that people have the free will to choose salvation, so I believe that they do. Obviously knowledge of God and His Word transcends the logic of man. But while we are still men, I find it interesting to discuss things such as this. Thank you for your reply.

Um. you have shown your weakness here, the Multi-verse Schroedinger cat theory? Parallel universes etc split from other reality's. I understand this concept rather well, but it still leaves the question were did it all come from? This is not a "Creation Theory" again as Wyguy said Nice smokescreen, It does make me wonder, where you the only person you agree with is an acknowledged atheist. So as far as is atheism a religion. No not be strict definition. Do they sometimes engage in behavior that have all the trappings of religion, yes. I have even seen them try to pass out "tracts" to prove there is no god and go around to tell people about their lack of belief in god. Atheistic missionary's? For instance Richard Dawkins has gone on the attack on God to prove to others that there is no God. He will even admit Aliens created life before God. As far as what the Bible says about this </h2>

Ok since no one wants to debate, I'm going use a hypothetical. The Topic- Can omniscience and free will coexist? Lets all step outside of the Bible for just a minute here. Let's say there is a hypothetical universe created by a hypothetical god (not the God of the Bible.) In his holy book it says that he is omniscient, however it doesn't say anything about the people of this universe having free will. Well, there is a person in this universe called Joey. We are going to find out if Joey has free will. Joey's god gives him two options, option A and option B. Joey's god knows exactly which option he will choose, as he is omniscient, and Joey's god can never be wrong. Joey's god knows Joey is going to pick option A. When Joey is presented with option A and option B, Joey chooses option A. Does Joey Have free will? In order to have free will he must have been able to choose option B, however this is how the story goes if Joey chooses option B. Joey's god gives him two options, option A and option B. Joey's god knows exactly which option he will choose, as he is omniscient, and Joey's god can never be wrong. Joey's god knows Joey is going to pick option A. When Joey is presented with option A and option B, Joey chooses option B! Joey's God was wrong, and by definition is not omniscient. Joey has free will but his god is not omniscient. Joey cannot choose option B if his god is omniscient. Therefore when presented with the options of A and B, and the presence of an omniscient god that knows he is going to choose option A, Joey must choose the choice that his god already knows he will choose. Because of this, he does not actually have a choice, rather an illusion of choice, and therefore does not have free will, rather, an illusion of free will.

Something else that I found was this "I have option A and option B.God knows what i am going to choose. He knows that i am going to choose A.Can i choose B?If the answer is no, then i have no free will. I am given the Illusion of a choice. If the answer is yes, then god was wrong and he is not omniscient." Before anyone goes off on me about what the Bible says let me say this. I know what the Bible says, and I am a Christian. This is just a logical contradiction that interests me and I want to talk about it.

It just seems illogical for God to be omniscient and for man to have free will. Maybe we just have an illusion of free will, that would be fine with me.

Well, since you extended an invitation, it would be this sentence I was referring to.... So people, please stop making these silly assertions about a topic that you obviously have so little knowledge of. Thank you, John Think; a negative of a photograph. So, believing in God on faith is bad? The good or bad is dependent upon the outcome of one's faith. Having faith that there is no God is a one way ticket to hell. First of all, when i said "people" as i said before, I was speaking generally, I was not saying "people of this forum" Second, you are right, there is such thing as a negative of a photograph. There is such thing as a negative of a number. There is no such thing as a negative of a religion. Something is either a religion or it is not. The definition of negative, in context of a photograph is "An image in which the light areas of the object rendered appear dark and the dark areas appear light." That analogy makes absolutely no sense. Third, NO, having faith is not bad! That is what I am trying to say. When you're a little kid and you went and ate the cookies that you weren't supposed to eat, your mom would come in and say "Hey, you're not supposed to eat those!" And you would say back "But sister ate them, and she wasn't supposed to have any!" Did saying that your sister ate some too make anything better? Did it prove a point? The answer is no. Now, regardless of whether faith is a good or a bad thing, (I believe faith is a good thing) if it is bad logic for someone to have faith that there is no god, then it is bad logic to have faith that there is a god. The definition of faith is belief without evidence. If you decide to fire back at someone and say "you have to have faith too!" you are just conceding a point.

Anyone have any thoughts? Here is what I read somewhere and I agree with it. "For example, if I predicted that a coin would land on heads, and it does, that doesnt mean that I am omniscient or that i effected the outcome of the coin toss. However if i am omniscient, and i know the coin will land on heads, then no matter what, the coin will land on heads. There is no other option, and this is why free will cannot exist with omniscience. If i claim to be omniscient and i say that it will land on heads, and it lands on tails, i was wrong and i am not omniscient."

Thank you very much, D-9. You are correct in your first statement. The a in atheism means without, so the word means without a theism. It's refreshing to read a well informed post on this topic!

Wrong. It's called "reality." Actually, there are 3. 1. The Universe created itself from nothingness. 2. It has always existed. 3. It was created. That's not the point - the point is that the Universe, and all life, are the results of supernatural creation. We are not arguing the validity of various religions, we are debating supernatural creation verses godless (atheistic) evolutionism. Then they are not atheists at all. If nature is all there is, and existence is the result of natural processes alone, (as atheists believe) then by default, atheists MUST be natuarlists. Let me give you the dictionary definition of atheism... AGAIN. a

That's a crock. Either the Universe and all life is the result of evolutionary processes apart from a supernatural hand, or they were created by God. The atheist cannot allow the idea of a Creator in the door - so you are left with naturalism alone. And naturalism alone is based on godless evolutionary thought. What you've just presented is a false dichotomy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy I am going to assume by God, you mean the Christian God. Well, why are there only two options? What about all the gods of all the other religions? Why aren't they options? Also, not all atheists are naturalists. Remember, I am a Christian too! I just want us to use good logic if we go on the attack!

No, I don't. You're attempting to reconcile two opposite worldviews and when that happens in the context of evolution vs the Bible it usually leads to bad science and even worse theology. You depart from a solid foundation (e.g. God's Authorship of the Bible, the universe and man, the literalness of the Bible, the limitations of science to explain God and 'His Ways') only to stumble upon the quicksands of relativism, equivocation and error (e.g. making theory, fact and law interchangeable, trivializing the authority of the Bible over a human conjecture about origins, implying that God's Word and Work do not match.) I'm not a supporter of Intelligent Design, therefore your remarks -although controversial- do not concern me. Finally, I would contest that your assertion that 'evolution is currently the best scientific explanation for the diversity of the things that we observe in nature' implies that evolution is the winner amongst different but equitably funded, researched, taught and publicized models at academic level. Yet we know that the evolutionary model has enjoyed for a century and a half the kind of hegemony that makes it the only accepted explanation in mainstream scientific circles and the media. PS: Thanks for arguing your points for the most part politely. And the media? Have you seen fox news? Ha ha I kid, I kid. I posted the lecture and talked about ID not for you, but for other people that might stumble upon this topic. Before I debate with you further, I must clarify a few topics. ID is not at all science, but an untested hypothesis that has been debunked over and over again. It has never (if submitted to) passed through a scientific journal, passed through peer review, or anything else that would qualify this as science. It is simply an attempt to squeeze in religion to schools. If you would care to watch the lecture (I apologize, I know it's long) you would see that the speaker (who is Christian Biologist, by the way) has been on trial when they ruled that ID was an attempt to get creationism into schools. Do I personally agree with the creationist point of view? Yes. But I live in America. We have separation of church and state here, and unless something is conducted in a scientific manner, it should not go into the science class. Second, I would agree with you that evolution is the only accepted explanation, however that does nothing to discredit it. Is it bad that the only theory of the force of attraction by which terrestrial bodies tend to fall toward the center of the earth is gravity? No. But gravity doesn't contradict a fundamentalist Christian world view, so no one seems to care. Lastly, I agree that I depart from logic and reason when I say that God must have had a reason to make things appear evolved. I do it because I have faith that my literal interpretation of the Bible is true. It is no different than when a child dies and someone says "God must have had a plan for him/her." It is not because they have evidence of an actual plan, it is because they have Faith.

I agree! However I must make sure that you are not insinuating that just because you are an atheist you believe that. If you are, refer back to my original post.