Argument From Free Will

[red]

The foregoing doesn't demonstrate anything of the sort, even in the absence of such an entity. You could be living in an entirely deterministic universe (you aren't, as can readily be demonstrated) and the forgoing demonstration would be unchanged. All you've demonstrated is that you seem to have free will, but that could be entirely illusory and you'd never be any the wiser.

If any omniscient entity did exist, then the universe would be deterministic, and any choice you thought you had would be merely the appearance of choice, not the actuality of it.

Thank you - I had not thought about a deterministic universe without causation.
On the latter, what if the omniscient entity was not perturbed by "knowing" and allowed for unrestricted probabilities to be realised. That is, infinite landscapes of infinite probability of objects, entities and events: Free will would be equally real and illusory.

 

[surreptitious57]

Omniscience only pertains to universal knowledge not to any thing else. So an omniscient being would not by virtue of possessing such knowledge
necessarily be capable of manipulating it for ulterior motive. And I say necessarily as that would depend up on whether or not that omniscient being
was also omnipotent. One has to remember that although omniscience and omnipotence are normally used in conjunction with each other that they
can exist independent of each other also. One could however say that an omniscient being could not also be omnipotent because if one possessed
all knowledge of all events then they could not be manipulated for ulterior motive. Although this argument would only be valid if time travel capability
were not possible at any point in time since being able to travel back in time would allow one to change events which have already happened. Or to
travel forward in time to change events which have not happened but which could be manipulated to happen differently. Though events which have
not happened in one frame of reference could have happened in another because time is not a constant but a variable. Although if time travel were
possible so that events could be changed then an omniscient being would possess knowledge of those events also and so would therefore know in
advance they were changing what had already happened before they actually did

 

[red]

Omniscience only pertains to universal knowledge not to any thing else. So an omniscient being would not by virtue of possessing such knowledge necessarily be capable of manipulating it for ulterior motive. And I say necessarily as that would depend up on whether or not that omniscient being was also omnipotent. One has to remember that although omniscience and omnipotence are normally used in conjunction with each other that they can exist independent of each other also. One could however say that an omniscient being could not also be omnipotent because if one possessed all knowledge of all events then they could not be manipulated for ulterior motive.

One either knows or does not. "Manipulating" what one knows does not make sense.
My earlier points in the thread suggested it was not possible to know something if you did not have the power to control it. How did I know there would be a car? I knew because I know how to make it possible. If cannot make it possible, I clearly cannot know and therefore would not be omniscient. My definition subsumed omnipotence as I could not otherwise see it as a valid independent property.

Although this argument would only be valid if time travel capability were not possible at any point in time since being able to travel back in time would allow one to change events which have already happened. Or to travel forward in time to change events which have not happened but which could be manipulated to happen differently. Though events which have not happened in one frame of reference could have happened in another because time is not a constant but a variable. Although if time travel were possible so that events could be changed then an omniscient being would possess knowledge of those events also and so would therefore know in advance they were changing what had already happened before they actually did

Determinism does not offer choice, so time is in the equation only to the extent that at any moment a predestined occurrence did happen.

 

[surreptitious57]

My earlier points in the thread suggested it was not possible to know something if you did not have the power to control it

You are conflating omniscience with omnipotence here. Having knowledge of something does not automatically imply control
of it also. Now I have knowledge of many things but none of them are things I can manipulate in any way either because they
have already happened or because they are beyond my influence. So omniscience and omnipotence are not always mutually
compatible. Your confusion emanates from the fact you think they are. Sometimes they can be but not just every time though

 

[red]

My earlier points in the thread suggested it was not possible to know something if you did not have the power to control it

You are conflating omniscience with omnipotence here. Having knowledge of something does not automatically imply control
of it also. Now I have knowledge of many things but none of them are things I can manipulate in any way either because they
have already happened or because they are beyond my influence. So omniscience and omnipotence are not always mutually
compatible. Your confusion emanates from the fact you think they are. Sometimes they can be but not just every time though

Tell me how you can know there will be a car if you are only omniscient, and have no power to determine the car's presence?

 

[surreptitious57]

Omniscience only pertains to knowledge not to the manipulation of that knowledge
For it is possible to know something without being able to influence that in any way
I still think you think omniscience and omnipotence are always mutually compatible

 

[red]

Omniscience only pertains to knowledge not to the manipulation of that knowledge
For it is possible to know something without being able to influence that in any way
I still think you think omniscience and omnipotence are always mutually compatible

That was not an answer to what I asked.

For it is possible to know something without being able to influence that in any way

Only after the event!

 

[surreptitious57]

Tell me how you can know there will be a car if you are only omniscient

Because omniscience is all that you need to have to know there shall be a car
Do you think you need something other than knowledge of the car to know that
If you do then why do need that when you already know what you need to know

 

[red]

Tell me how you can know there will be a car if you are only omniscient

Because omniscience is all that you need to have to know there shall be a car
Do you think you need something other than knowledge of the car to know that
If you do then why do need that when you already know what you need to know

How did omniscience make the car?

 

[surreptitious57]

Omniscience is not actually required to make the car
It is just required to have knowledge of how to make it
Knowing how to make it and making it are not the same

 

[red]

Omniscience is not actually required to make the car
It is just required to have knowledge of how to make it
Knowing how to make it and making it are not the same

If the capacity to make something happen does not lie with you, then you cannot have knowledge that it will happen.

 

[surreptitious57]

Yes you can because knowledge of something is completely independent of
the thing in question actually happening since knowledge is passive not active
I can know of something without having any influence at all on making it happen

 

[red]

I can know of something without having any influence at all on making it happen

So how did you know about where the car went before you knew there was a car, before there was somewhere that allowed for a car to exist?

 

[surreptitious57]

though this argument would only be valid if time travel capability were not possible at any point in time since being able to travel back in time would
allow one to change events which have already happened. Or to travel forward in time to change events which have not happened but which could
be manipulated to happen differently. Though events which have not happened in one frame of reference could have happened in another because
time is not a constant but a variable. Although if time travel were possible so that events could be changed then an omniscient being would possess
knowledge of those events also and so would therefore know in advance they were changing what had already happened before they actually did so

Determinism does not offer choice so time is in the equation only to the extent that at any moment a predestined occurrence did happen

If time travel was discovered then any point in spacetime could be manipulated by changing what originally happened in it to something else which
did not originally happen in it. The only way an event or series of events at any point in spacetime could not be manipulated would be if time travel
was not possible at any time. And this would also include other beings not being able to discover it either because an omniscient being would have
knowledge of their knowledge as well. Which would be a sub set of its own knowledge unless they were also omniscient in which case both sets of
knowledge would be absolutely identical. And if time travel were possible it would mean that the same points in spacetime could be manipulated by
an infinity of events all different to each other. So taken to its logical conclusion all of spacetime could be manipulated in this way. And which would
include the non observable part of this universe as well as all other universes too

 

[Deleted member 619]

but if each entity was capable of the power to change what might be known, then neither could be omnipotent unless it "knew" what the other was going to do.

I don't think you meant to use the underlined.

In any event, there's nothing in omniscience that includes the power to change or influence anything, as it only pertains to knowledge.

 

[Deleted member 619]

How did omniscience make the car?

This is the modal fallacy. It would be possible for an omniscient entity to know that somebody else will invent the car, and it would even know the details of its operation, without ever having any influence over its invention.

If it's possible to known something, an omnipotent entity will know it.

 

[Deleted member 619]

If the capacity to make something happen does not lie with you, then you cannot have knowledge that it will happen.

I don't have any influence over the rotation of the planet, but I know there will be a sunrise in the morning.

Such knowledge is trivial. I think you're working too hard on the 'omni' bit, as if that implies power. It doesn't, it just deals with how much is known.

 

[Deleted member 619]

So how did you know about where the car went before you knew there was a car, before there was somewhere that allowed for a car to exist?

As always happens in this discussion, it's begun to flip-flop between mere knowledge and infallible, perfect knowledge.

The answer to the question, for an omniscient entity, is 'I know everything, including the future and all the things that will exist therein'.

 

[surreptitious57]

So how did you know about where the car went before you knew there was a car

Once I become omniscient I know where the car went so the question is academic

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I think there's a basic misunderstanding about omniscience as it applies to the proverbial Creator.

Rather than thinking in terms of a Creator observing past, present, and future, it would be best to think of it in terms of the Creator experiencing "the Eternal NOW" - thus, there's no such thing as past, present and/or future for the Creator, just PRESENT.

As such, the Creator knows everything since it's all occurring NOW.

Thus, the Creator knows what "choices" you're going to make tomorrow (your future, His PRESENT) - this has nothing to do with the Creator actually controlling what "choices" you're going to make tomorrow.

Kindest regards,

James