Argument From Free Will

[surreptitious57]

Other species may be able to think in abstract terms but not to the extent humans can. As logic would indicate
that if two species had very similar cognitive capability in that respect that they would be able to find a common
methodology by which they could communicate with each other. But no other species actually uses language in
the same way that we do. And unless they ever shall then inter species communication will be very basic at best

 

[Deleted member 619]

As logic would indicate that if two species had very similar cognitive capability in that respect that they would be able to find a common methodology by which they could communicate with each other.

Logic dictates nothing of the sort, not least because our ability with language isn't predicated on intelligence alone.

But no other species actually uses language in the same way that we do.

This factoid was extracted directly from your rectum.

 

[red]

Because omniscience pertains to thought while omnipotence pertains to action

One is a state of mental supremacy while the other is a state of physical supremacy

And as the mental and physical do not overlap then neither can impact upon the other

I think you have unwittingly used a restrictive definition of omnipotence.
All powerful, to my mind, means exactly that. Thus, it includes powers to do, act, think, change, affect etc..
An omnipotent entity has the power to alter your thoughts, implant false memories and hide information.
As hackenslash points out, we create a paradox if different entities each has one of the omnis.

 

[surreptitious57]

I can say with virtual certainty that no other species uses written language in the same way or to the same extent that we do and that we may very well
be unique in that respect. As written language and spoken language are highly compatible with each other then our spoken language may probably be
the most comprehensive in all of the animal kingdom too. However it is possible that some species such as whales for example may use language to a
more complex degree than is really understood. But we too have a multiplicity of spoken languages which again may be unique to the animal kingdom

I would also suggest that there is a correlation between the complexity of language and the intelligence of species which uses it. And as it is generally
acknowledged that humans are the most advanced species then it would logically follow that they have the most complex language too. I would also
suggest that there is a difference between communication and language which is analogous to that between information and knowledge. And so for
example a crying baby uses communication while a talking baby uses language. So communication is very basic while language is more complex

Now I have precisely zero evidence to validate the above which is why I do not regard any of it as fact but as plausible hypotheses. For unless
something has been subject to potential falsification it cannot be taken as objectively true even if it actually is. Now all of this is a major derail
which has nothing at all to do with the original thread but some times they can be interesting in their own right and this is one such example

 

[Skiosaweirdo]

I should have made this point clear when I spoke of the need to subsume omnipotence into omniscience - it was the only way it worked in my brain at that time. But the word paradox was not on my radar, so in future I will try to think a bit deeper about the whys - so many thanks as always..

The easiest way to see this point is to ask 'can an omniscient, omnipotent entity do something that it didn't know it would do?'

There's nothing illogical about doing something you didn't know you'd do, and indeed this is a power we all possess, but it can't happen with those two omnis in place.

Of course, dependent on how you define them, they're pretty much impossible on their own, but put the two together and you have a paradox.

You soon have no idea what you are talking about. I've never seen an illogical mind claim they think logically. Omniscience and omnipotence do not create a paradox within the powers of one being

 

[Skiosaweirdo]

Omniscience and free will seem, to me, to be mutually exclusive. Which of these two arguments seems more valid and why?

1. If free will exists then omniscience is not possible.
2. Free will exists.
3. An omniscient god is not possible.

Or...

1. If free will exists then omniscience is not possible.
2. God is omniscient.
3. Free will does not exist.

Sorry, but you need to rethink and relearn the rules of modus ponens in regards to proper subject matter. It is used as an inference of a truth from acknowledged truths, none of which you argue here. You have simply done nothing but made a personal opinion fallacy. Oh, you also don't understand what free will is or entails so that also led to the incorrect reasoning. Hagd.

 

[thenexttodie]

Omniscience and free will seem, to me, to be mutually exclusive. Which of these two arguments seems more valid and why?

1. If free will exists then omniscience is not possible.
2. Free will exists.
3. An omniscient god is not possible.

Or...

1. If free will exists then omniscience is not possible.
2. God is omniscient.
3. Free will does not exist.

You might want to word 1. like

1. Free will and omniscience can't exist, because (fill in the blank)

This is a weird thread. But no, God is not omniscient, because he does not force us to love him.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Omniscience and free will seem, to me, to be mutually exclusive. Which of these two arguments seems more valid and why?

1. If free will exists then omniscience is not possible.
2. Free will exists.
3. An omniscient god is not possible.

Or...

1. If free will exists then omniscience is not possible.
2. God is omniscient.
3. Free will does not exist.

You might want to word 1. like

1. Free will and omniscience can't exist, because (fill in the blank)

This is a weird thread. But no, God is not omniscient, because he does not force us to love him.

That is a non sequitor.

Would you kindly explain your thinking here?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Laurens]

There are lots of problems when it comes to free will.

For example if God has a plan for mankind that has a predetermined outcome, we cannot also have free will because if so we could act against that outcome, if we can do that then God is not almighty, or doesn't have a plan.

Also if God answers prayer and intervenes this might create problems with free will. Say I prayed that my friend turns their life around for the better. If God does intervene to achieve that outcome he must have done so at the expense if my friend's free will.

It boils down to the fact that people subscribe to nonsensical ideas without thinking about the inherent contradictions in them.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Also if God answers prayer and intervenes this might create problems with free will. Say I prayed that my friend turns their life around for the better. If God does intervene to achieve that outcome he must have done so at the expense if my friend's free will.

I agree that before answering philosophical issues concerning free will, we must first determine what exactly is entailed by "free will".

The reason I am quoting your comment however, is that when it comes to discussing the christian god, it should be pointed out that bible stories does depict a god who does interfere directly with what is generally understood as free will. This raises a whole lot of inchorent notions about free will and omnibenevolence.

 

[thenexttodie]

Greetings,
That is a non sequitor.

Would you kindly explain your thinking here?

Kindest regards,

James

I don't think it's a non sequtoir. You can't force a person to love you. You must be free to chose. Perhaps you can argue that God knew beforehand that you would chose to love Him. But the God of the Bible is clearly not omniscient.

 

[MarsCydonia]

I don't think it's a non sequtoir. You can't force a person to love you. You must be free to chose. Perhaps you can argue that God knew beforehand that you would chose to love Him. But the God of the Bible is clearly not omniscient.

That also appears to be a non-sequitur.

How does omniscience equate to "having to force people to love you"? What is your understanding of omniscience where the latter is an effect of the former?

And if you say that the god of the bible is clearly not omniscient, are you saying that the bible is wrong when it describes god as omniscient?

 

[thenexttodie]

There are lots of problems when it comes to free will.

For example if God has a plan for mankind that has a predetermined outcome, we cannot also have free will because if so we could act against that outcome, if we can do that then God is not almighty, or doesn't have a plan..

If God is wise, than of course he can make a plan involving beings that have free will. We do this all the time.

Also if God answers prayer and intervenes this might create problems with free will. Say I prayed that my friend turns their life around for the better. If God does intervene to achieve that outcome he must have done so at the expense if my friend's free will

What a strange thing for you to say. I don't think God will answer any of your prayers because you are his enemy. Right? You will go to hell when you die.
Even if I prayed for you, which I won't, I wouldn't expect it to result in a drastic change in your relationship with God.

 

[Laurens]

What a strange thing for you to say. I don't think God will answer any of your prayers because you are his enemy. Right? You will go to hell when you die.
Even if I prayed for you, which I won't, I wouldn't expect it to result in a drastic change in your relationship with God.

Wow, ignoring the unnecessary spite, you totally and completely missed the point of what I was saying.

My point is this, if you can pray for God to intervene in someone's life, and God does so, we have no free will.

EDIT

If God is wise, than of course he can make a plan involving beings that have free will. We do this all the time.

If there is a pre-determined outcome which God has set and he makes sure happens using his omnipotence, then we do not have free will.

 

[thenexttodie]

And if you say that the god of the bible is clearly not omniscient, are you saying that the bible is wrong when it describes god as omniscient?

There is a difficulty in us being able to understand concepts which involve an infinity or a spiritual being. Yet the Bible makes it clear that God is not omniscient.

 

[thenexttodie]

Wow, ignoring the unnecessary spite, you totally and completely missed the point of what I was saying.

My point is this, if you can pray for God to intervene in someone's life, and God does so, we have no free will.

No. It is totally possible for us to intervene in each others lives without violating a will.

EDIT

If God is wise, than of course he can make a plan involving beings that have free will. We do this all the time.

If there is a pre-determined outcome which God has set and he makes sure happens using his omnipotence, then we do not have free will.

No, you are wrong. If God has predeterminded that he will make his enemies his footstool, it does not mean that he forces his enemies to want to be his footstool. It means that God is strong enough to make his enemies his footstool, in spite of their will.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Yet the Bible makes it clear that God is not omniscient.

Actually, the bible makes clear description of omniscience. It also makes clear description of god not being omniscient. The result being an incoherent notion from the many incoherent notions found within.

But thus, if you assert that the bible makes it clear that god is not omniscient, it implies that the bible is in error the times that it does assert he is.

 

[Laurens]

No. It is totally possible for us to intervene in each others lives without violating a will.

If I was a Christian and I prayed that my boss change their mind about something, and God intervenes to do so, he would have affected someone's free will

No, you are wrong. If God has predeterminded that he will make his enemies his footstool, it does not mean that he forces his enemies to want to be his footstool. It means that God is strong enough to make his enemies his footstool, in spite of their will.

Did God intend the Jesus die on the cross?

If so did Judas have a choice when it came to betraying him?

Did Pilate have a choice when it came to executing him?

 

[thenexttodie]

Yet the Bible makes it clear that God is not omniscient.

Actually, the bible makes clear description of omniscience. It also makes clear description of god not being omniscient. The result being an incoherent notion from the many incoherent notions found within.

But thus, if you assert that the bible makes it clear that god is not omniscient, it implies that the bible is in error the times that it does assert he is.

If the God of the Bible exists, than either one or the other must be true. Because of the many unfullfilled prophecies God gave in the Bible. And because God in the Bible said he had no idea of the evil things we would do. It seems very clear to me that God is not omniscient. There are many other Christians who would disagree with me but whenever this topic is debated, even among the most educated, my side always slaughters the other side. So take it as you may.

 

[Laurens]

If the God of the Bible exists, than either one or the other must be true. Because of the many unfullfilled prophecies God gave in the Bible. And because God in the Bible said he had no idea of the evil things we would do. It seems very clear to me that God is not omniscient. There are many other Christians who would disagree with me but whenever this topic is debated, even among the most educated, my side always slaughters the other side. So take it as you may.

Does your theology not entail that Jesus was sent down in order to die on the cross for our sins?

You seem to be saying that God cannot in any way intervene with our free will. If that is the case do you accept that Pilate had a choice or not? Did God really leave all that up to chance and hope that all the players involved would freely choose the outcome that suited his plan? What would have happened if Pilate had freed Jesus, or the crowd had chosen to execute Barabbas and free Jesus?

You have to understand the number of choices entailed in coming out the right way. It entails that Judas would decide of his own accord to betray Jesus. What if he hadn't? What if the Jewish authorities had decided Jesus had not committed any crime? What if the aforementioned crowd chose to release Jesus rather than Barabbas? What if Pilate had decided to intervene and use his authority to call off his execution?

Are you really saying that God left that many elements of his universal salvation plan to human free choice? Or did he intervene and therefore remove the free will of those people?