It's in the middle of the night and I can't stop typing.
God and Free Will.
There, I said it. I've been thinking about that too, and I have more arguments. Just stop reading at this point if you're tired of me.
I think we all know this argument - if God knows everything, it is impossible for free will to exist, since He would have predicted our actions already. (For a writer who's not strictly religious, I capitalize God a lot, I just realized).
Anywho: If God knows everything, we cannot have free will, because our actions would be predicted. But really - why does this have to be? I'll take a mundane example.
I flip a coin. In doing so, I don't determine the outcome, yet I know the outcome will be either heads or tails (or, possibly, it will land on edge). I know these are the possible outcomes. I know perfectly well how the "heads" and "tails" on the coin look, and if we want to get nitpicky, let's say I've carefully studied every other factor in the room. The only thing I don't know is the force used to flip the coin (obviously, as this is hard to measure beforehand). I still know everything about the coin being flipped and about all the possible outcomes, I just cannot predict it.
Omniscence, by definition, is the ability to know everything, which includes every possible action (but, as in the previous post, not actions that could not logically occur). Presuming God knows all, does this really limit our free will? Yes, God can perfectly predict what outcomes will come of my choice to buy ice cream or not, but He does not cause either choice, he simply knows both alternatives. This possibility, of course, requires that God knows everything that could potentially happen, not just everything that happens. This, of course, amounts to an infinite amount of knowledge, but that's no problem since that is the very definition of omniscence.
Does this explanation make sense? It's kind of Schrödingers' Cat-ish in nature and I don't know how well physics-con-philosophy-con-pop-culture applies to theology, but I had to write this down, or I'd forget it.
33 kommentarer:
Gawd, Rik. You're amazing. Not the religious argumentation. (I'm not really into religion) but the hillarious links :D
I agree with the Chinese One about the linkage, but not with the argument as a whole. An omniscient being does not only know all alternatives, but also which one of them is going to happen. That's the whole point. Using the example with the coin, a being who knows Everything, the wind in the room, the force used to flip it, etc. If one knows all of those factors, then there is no element of chance left, it's all math and physics.
And, besides, if God can not see past a choice (He is worse than the oracle if that is true) then he cannot logically have predicted anything that happened as a result of a choice. Including, say, anything anyone does, because He can't have known that that person was to exist until he was conceived, since that was a choice. In my mind, the whole point of an omniscient being is that he/she/it knows Everything, every possible outcome, and also which one of them is going to happen.
Apparently, it all comes down to the distinction between total omniscience and inherent omniscience.
Well, not necessarily. Knowing all possible outcomes doesn't limit one to any single outcome, if you consider Schrödinger's Cat in the argument.
Basically, the argument goes that before a choice is made, both consequences are equally true. Before one opens the box, Schrödingers' Cat is both dead *and* not dead. God could thus know both these futures without being limited to which one is going to occur - not because a flaw exists in what he knows, but because there simply is no distinction.
Thus, the whole argument can actually be circumvented on another, much simpler point: If causal laws do not govern the universe (which quantum mechanics seem to imply) then knowing everything about the current universe does not allow one to perfectly predict it. It allows one to know all possibilities, though.
But that is still a limited kind of omniscience.
Schrödinger's Cat relies on the fact that we have to open the box to know. An omniscient being would have to, it would just Know what had or hadn't happened in it.
And you have to agree, knowing every possible outcome is Not the same, or "as much" omniscient, as knowing them all And knowing which one is going to come true, yes?
Possibly not, but see the previous post. It might be logically impossible (there I go again) to know the outcomes, simply because the universe does not work that way.
Yes, God created the universe, but he might have created an intentionally unpredictable universe in order to give Man free will.
Also, there's nothing that says God has to *use* his omniscence. It's also possible that He simply chooses not to sneak-peek at the future in order not to ruin our fun.
Whether or not God uses omniscience is irrelevant, a single moment of omniscience, anywhere in time, is enough to eradicate free will.
Why can't it be a free choise if God happens to know wich one you are going to make? If Sara asks me if I want chocolate or liquorice I am given a free choise even though Sara happens to know that I hate liquorice and will not choose that. I still had the possibility to choose otherwise.
There is a great difference there. Sara knows you don't like it, and is aware that you are biased towards the other alternative. This is NOT the same as Knowing which one you are going to choose. If I was omniscient and knew, for a fact, 100% certain, that you would choose alternative 1, there would be no possible way for you to choose alternative 2, since that would mean that I was wrong, and therefore not omniscient.
Yes I see Anton's point, but I have to agree more with Kristin here. Even if God knows the outcome with a 100 % he still gives man a choice. He knows what will be chosen, but that does not mean that it is his initiative. Man decides himself. Knowledge is not a cause. This means that God knows everything, but man also has free will.
But if anyone knows with 100% certainty the outcome of every choice I will make in my life, ten it would be impossible for me to make another choice, right? You can argue that God does not make the choice for man, and I am not saying he does, I'm just saying that if someone can know, 100% certainly, that I will make ChoiceA rather than ChoiceB, then it is impossible for me to make the "wrong" choice, and therefore I have no real choice, merely an internal discussion with myself as to Why I choose the "right" one.
No because it does not matter if God knows or not. Man is presented with a choice in the same way, he carefully thinks it through and then makes his choice. That is, man makes a choice independently of whatever God or anyone else knows. He makes it only according to his free will. And then if God back in Vire, France (sorry couldn't resist :P) knows before what man will choose it does not effect the choice made. So both free will and God's omniscience can exist at the same time.
Arrggh badly formulated but I'm too tired to write it down yet 'again'. Anton's heard it before anyway so...
The difference between us on this matter, Sara, is that I see Free Will as the ability to make choices that define my own actions, and therefore the future, whereas, as near as I can tell, you define it as the ability to make the choice, regardless of whether you can actually alter the outcome or not, as long as you make the choice freely. At least, that's how I interpreted it. I hope I didn't get it completely wrong.
I think that God's omniscense has a limit when it comes to predicting the future. If you see the time flow as turn-based then he knows exactly what's going on this turn, and what choises will be made. If he wants to he can predict what choises will be made in the next turn but that takes a deliberate action. I suppose it all comes down to belief. I believe that God is omniscent and I refuse to believe that everything bad that happens has been planned by God from the beginning of creation.
Anton, I'm so sorry that I keep saying this, but I sincerely believe that you can make free choices affecting your own future, without it being affected by someone knowing the future. You will probably never get me to understand your reasoning here, and I will never get you to understand my reasoning.
Kristin has an interesting thought, but I must say I don't agree. It's something I would want to believe though since it would explain a lot...
I'm sort of late in this discussion (which makes me sad, because it's a cool subject) but:
I have to agree with mr. teddy. If you know everything about the world, you know what's going to happen. You don't need to know the "future" as so, but if you have every single bit of information about everything in existance, you will know what will happen at least the following second, and if you do, then you'll know when that happens and: voilá, chain reaction of omnisence! Fine, so God could not use this power, but that's just as bad as using it, isn't it? He *could* know about every war that's coming, but he chooses to not know. Great difference there.
And saying that you give someone a choice even if you know what they're going to choose is so horribly morally wrong to believe that I must outright throw some pies on it:
A girl has a boyfriend she loves, and she has to borrow a car to go to him, or he will die, and another guy comes to her and says: if you have sex with me I will drive you to him. She has *only* the choice of letting her boyfriend die, or buying the car with sex. There are no other options involved, like finding another car or something. Did he just give her a choice? If he is the guy who set up the rules, kidnapped her boyfriend, and if he knows her so well he is sure she would never let her boyfriend die, did he give her a choice? *glares*
Oh... sorry for the obvious sexism in that example...
As for God's part in all this (God, as in the Christian god that we talk about now, is a name, and thus I capitalize it) I have nothing to add to the discussion: the point of faith and religion is belief, and that doesn't have to have anything to do with logic. Discussing and analyzing it is fine and fun, but not the point.
I am very glad to have someone agree with me, so I know I'm not completely lost, but I didn't really understand exactly what part Iceye agreed with...
The way I see it, it doesn't matter if God 'chooses' not to use the power, a single moment of omniscience is, from my point of view, enough so set the future, and therefore invalidating any choices in the matter.
But, whatever, I'm not going to argue this right now, I'm not in the mood.
Maybe later.
Okey I guess that now is a good time to confess..I don't really believe in free will, just the illusion of it.....*hides behind my chair* But I still think my point is valid. Even if I don't believe in free will, my reasoning is to me correct. Now I don't know if that is because my beliefs are blocking it or something. Anton, please don't kill me for wasting you time *hides again*
Hahaha :D
1: You didn't waste my time, I would have been very very bored if I hadn't had you to talk to :) I've been in Trosa, or waiting to go here, during the entire discussion, so it's not like I didn't like it :)
2: I'd never kill you, for any reason whatsoever. I like you, stupid :P
Besides, with your armies, I'd be an exercise in extended suicide to even try to harm you.
3: It really doesn't matter if you believe in free will or not, the entire discussion was hypothetical. Since I don't believe in an omniscient god, I can hardly expect you to believe in everything you argued for.
Now, if that is established, can I then bring up another point which has been bugging me for a while. If man has no say over his actions, and is utterly unable to alter the outcome of them in any way, how can he be held responsible for them?
How can a person be punished for a crime that he/she/it had no possible way of avoiding, no matter what?
Because the punishment is the unavoidable reaction to the action whather it is avoidable or not?
It's all really silly, because if there is a fate, a pattern we follow slavishly (which I believe), it doesn't matter crap, because the people who don't believe in it aren't supposed to believe in it, and so on. And just like that, there are supposed to be punishments because that is the pattern.
What Da-Ryun said...
Plus, there is obviously an illusion of free will, otherwise there wouldn't be so many people believing in it. So one still has made the wrong choice and must pay for it. Even if it was unavoidable for one to make it. How else would people learn and evolve?
And thank you for sparing me Anton. :P Plus making me laugh out loud for about five minutes over the army-comment. I feel so...loved ^_~
@Iceye:
So we punish people, not for the crimes they committed, but because it has been decided that it is to happen?
@Sara:
You're contradicting yourself. If there is no free will, and all is set and predetermined, then it doesn't matter at all what people choose, or think, or whatever, they will still evolve in exactly the same way, since nothing they can do will ever change what has been foreseen.
@Both:
Doesn't it bother you to think that nothing you ever do will make any kind of difference in life? That, no matter what you do, the same things will happen anyway? In my eyes, that sounds a bit too much like a way to avoid taking real responsibility for ones actions, to be honest.
@Sara Agin:
Well, you should, because you are.
Simple, see? :)
There's a very interesting point here which Sara made,that hadn't really struck me: Knowledge is not causality.
Knowing that something will happen does not cause it nor dictate it. Knowing that there will be an earthquake, for instance, does not make you responsible for the earthquake - nor does it give you the power to stop it. Couldn't it be the same with God?
If we have independent souls, then our free will is something which God cannot directly control. He may *know* beforehand that I will choose to stab someone, but he cannot stop me - it is an event that originates elsewhere but in God.
Does this not classify as a type of "free will"? Especially if the universe, as quantum mechanics seems to dictate, is not causal, but true randomness actually does exist?
I see your point, Rik, but not it's application at the moment.
I don't think anyone said God caused all actions, I merely say that the knowledge of them, forfeits all choices, something your point does not adres.
First of all Anton, I am not contradicting myself. You said "they will still evolve in exactly the same way", and yes they will. But they evolve and that's the point. Without failures one would just stand still.
When it comes to the second point I can only answer for myself. I actually feel very safe knowing that there is a plan and meaning with my life. That I don't suffer in vain. And when it comes to responsibility I don't agree with you. If I do something wrong I will still have to suffer from it, and learn from it, whether it was fate or not. So I am forced to take responsibility for my action. Which I was also meant to do.
And Rikard, your point works if you neglect that God is also all-powerful. But thank you for letting me know that someone understands my point =P
/agree with Sara, with minor adjustments. Believing in fate means never asking yourself "does this make a difference" or question responsability. Because if there is a fate, there is nothing else, no difference, no nothing. It's like asking what exists beyond the borders of the universe; it's conceptual but not real, it has no application in real life.
Look: if it's a person's fate to be good, he or she will be good. If it's fate to be evil, he or she will be evil. If a person justifies his/her being evil with it being fate, he/she was fated to justify it with just that and be evil. See?
So the way I see it, there is no grander plan. There was a moment of absolute chaosality, and from then on everything has been a reaction to the previous action. This is nothing I walk around thinking about constantly like a religion, and it has little or no impact on how I make decisions, but it is what I believe in, the ground upon which my religion rests on.
Hm... and also, I pair this belief in fate (or rather chain reaction) with selfishness (or rather egocentricness): I might help someone because it makes me feel good. So wheather I like it or not I can't go around killing people because a) it would put me in jail and b) it would probably make me lose all my friends and c) it might make me feel bad. If I could avoid all those effects, I would totally go around killing people. And if it's fate that I should, I will someday think of a way to avoid them.
You are a very interesting character, Iceye.
Uh, yeah, thanks. Not the point, but thanks. =P I also just thought of something else: since we don't know the future, whether we have free will or not does not matter. Right? It only matters to those who know the future, and if they know, there is no free will... huh... oh... whatever.^^'
Yes, this entire discussion is completely hypothetical, nothing can ever be proven.
That was what I was trying to say! Thank you Da-Ryun ^^
Skicka en kommentar