or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Predestination vs. Freewill
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Predestination vs. Freewill

post #1 of 59
Thread Starter 
if there infact is an all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful god (AGAPAK God) than which is right? Predestination or Freewill?

If God is all-knowing, then freewill is a paradox

if there is no freewill, then what is the point of living a preordained life? Pretty depressing if nothing you do is actually your own decision...

If God is all-good, and God created everything, then there is no evil and every action will eventually turn out to of been for good

etc... etc...
post #2 of 59
Philosophy majors have WAY too much free time on their hands.
post #3 of 59
Thread Starter 
lawyer, but good try
post #4 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cato988

if there infact is an all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful god (AGAPAK God) than which is right? Predestination or Freewill?

If God is all-knowing, then freewill is a paradox

Not necessarily true. There is a lot about the universe that we don't really understand. Until the early 20th century, scientists and philosophers pretty much thought that we had figured out everything. And then quantum physics popped up. Oops.

Quantum physics has had a tremendous impact on philosophy, but it's still too new, and perhaps too abstract, to have been absorbed much by the generic world of the liberal-arts-educated literati. The main point here is that an observable event with a seemingly predictable outcome could actually be the sum result of an infinite number of statistically motivated yet ultimately unpredictable interactions. With this understanding, your paradox is not actually a paradox at all.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #5 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cato988

lawyer, but good try

Haha sorry I was just thinking back to Philosophy 101 four years ago...
post #6 of 59
Really nothing in our scientific knowledge precludes predestination, or even allows for free will. However I'm pretty sure I have it.
post #7 of 59
An omniscient creator god precludes human free will.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #8 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cato988

if there infact is an all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful god (AGAPAK God) than which is right? Predestination or Freewill?

If God is all-knowing, then freewill is a paradox

etc... etc...

The statement that "God is all-knowing" is a paradox in itself and thus can not be reasoned using logic.
Nice try, play again. :-)
post #9 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skatman

The statement that "God is all-knowing" is a paradox in itself and thus can not be reasoned using logic.
Nice try, play again. :-)

elaborate with reason please
post #10 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

An omniscient creator god precludes human free will.

Those don't seem mutually exclusive?
post #11 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Placebo

Really nothing in our scientific knowledge precludes predestination, or even allows for free will. However I'm pretty sure I have it.

Nothing in classical physics. For everything beyond classical physics, we can observe stochastics that lead to statistics, but there aren't the same causal relationships that include traditional, western philosophical thought, or for that matter the absence of freewill.

The bottom line is that our universe may well be ergodic, but it is probably not causal. By "probably not" I mean that there are scientific theories that demonstrate non-causality, and by "theory" I mean work that's pretty much canon (not the incorrect, colloquial usage of "theory"). Thus it's not a major leap to understand that all philosophies that do take the universe to be causal are inept to demonstrate features of a non-causal universe.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #12 of 59
What is it about these semantic arguments that seem to draw lawyers in like poo attracts flies?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #13 of 59
This isn't a semantic argument, because it does not hinge on definitions. It is a discussion of basic logic.

Quote:
Those don't seem mutually exclusive?

I am unsure as to how to answer this question.

As far as why an omniscient creator and free will are mutually exclusive, it is fairly simple. If the god that created everything knew everything before the creation, then obviously everything that would happen was predetermined before it was even created. For free will to exist, man would have to have spirits or moral centers that were formed (or merely existed) independent of the creator god.

If god created everything and had perfect knowledge before that creation, how would free will exist for man?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #14 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

This isn't a semantic argument, because it does not hinge on definitions. It is a discussion of basic logic.



I am unsure as to how to answer this question.

As far as why an omniscient creator and free will are mutually exclusive, it is fairly simple. If the god that created everything knew everything before the creation, then obviously everything that would happen was predetermined before it was even created. For free will to exist, man would have to have spirits or moral centers that were formed (or merely existed) independent of the creator god.

If god created everything and had perfect knowledge before that creation, how would free will exist for man?


freewill would exist for man because if God is all powerful, then how can paradoxes exist to him? They cant.

A paradox is simply something that man created to explain things their mind cannot grasp. If there truely is an AGAPAK God (refer to first post) than surely freewill can exist without paradox
post #15 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

This isn't a semantic argument, because it does not hinge on definitions. It is a discussion of basic logic.

. . .

If god created everything and had perfect knowledge before that creation, how would free will exist for man?

There are so, so many explanations that allow for the existence of a creator AND a universe with some modicum of freewill. As I mentioned, none allow for causality, so basic logic is ill-equipped to handle them.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #16 of 59
Cato988:

Quote:
A paradox is simply something that man created to explain things their mind cannot grasp. If there truely is an AGAPAK God (refer to first post) than surely freewill can exist without paradox

Ah, so the "it is because I said so" line of argument.



Splinemodel:

Quote:
There are so, so many explanations that allow for the existence of a creator AND a universe with some modicum of freewill.

I didn't address your first post because of this astoundingly false statement:
Until the early 20th century, scientists and philosophers pretty much thought that we had figured out everything.

You talk about quantum mechanics theory as if it is an organism that burst onto the scene of its own accord. Scientists formulated the theory and researched it eagerly, so much for their ivory tower complacence.

Someone who so condescendingly dismisses the "liberal-arts-educated literati" should not make such a rookie logical mistake.

Quote:
The main point here is that an observable event with a seemingly predictable outcome could actually be the sum result of an infinite number of statistically motivated yet ultimately unpredictable interactions. With this understanding, your paradox is not actually a paradox at all.

You use "unpredictable", which nullifies to "all-knowing" part of the god.

"So if you ignore the basic premise of the argument and change it to suit a desired outcome, there is no paradox at all!"

If there is an all-knowing creator god, the only free will we have is our own ignorance of the future.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #17 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel

There are so, so many explanations that allow for the existence of a creator AND a universe with some modicum of freewill.

I basically remember using "foreknowledge" about 50 times in the explanation and then it kinda made sense....
post #18 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

This isn't a semantic argument, because it does not hinge on definitions. It is a discussion of basic logic.

Did you just try to tie together logic and religion?

By it's very nature, a religion relies on your submission to it's tenets, logical or not.

How about a discussion of "Predestination vs. Freewill" that does not rely on religious arguments?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #19 of 59
Of course religious faith is illogical, but that does not stop guilt-ridden believers from attempting to legitimize the set of superstitions. Silly believers are not content to stay in their magesterium.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #20 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

An omniscient creator god precludes human free will.

Not at all. Omniscient means knowing all the possible facts and all the possible outcomes of choices that result from those facts, not necessarily knowing which particular choice will be executed. Even omnipotence does not preclude allowing choices to be made.

Another way to think about it is omniscience is the infinite knowledge of what can happen in infinite choices in the face of infinite possibilities. Not merely knowing the path of a single unchanging thread through existence. The latter is a pretty weak knowledge, the former is infinitely powerful. If you were choosing your God, which would you choose?
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #21 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by skatman

The statement that "God is all-knowing" is a paradox in itself and thus can not be reasoned using logic.
Nice try, play again. :-)

"God is all-knowing" is not a paradox, just not supportable via basic logical arguments. It is the equivalent of a mathematical axiom. Axioms are not logically supportable either, they are just taken on faith to be true and the basis for other truths to be derived.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #22 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel

Nothing in classical physics. For everything beyond classical physics, we can observe stochastics that lead to statistics, but there aren't the same causal relationships that include traditional, western philosophical thought, or for that matter the absence of freewill.

The bottom line is that our universe may well be ergodic, but it is probably not causal. By "probably not" I mean that there are scientific theories that demonstrate non-causality, and by "theory" I mean work that's pretty much canon (not the incorrect, colloquial usage of "theory"). Thus it's not a major leap to understand that all philosophies that do take the universe to be causal are inept to demonstrate features of a non-causal universe.

That's just a jargon filled non-statement. Theories of non-casuality are merely indicators that we haven't got the theory right yet. Any other conclusion either leads to a universe that is dealing with constantly changing rules or one that cannot exist because cause and effect are measurable in the universe we do live in.

Simply establishing cause and effect once in a non-casual universe would violate the opening assumptions and the contradiction proves the impossibility of non-causuality. I poke my sister, she says OW! So much for non-causuality.

As for the constantly changing rules possibility, it's tough to disprove because you can always say wait another 10 seconds and check again. But the likelihood is pretty damn small since we don't seem to be noticing those changing rules.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #23 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro

Not at all. Omniscient means knowing all the possible facts and all the possible outcomes of choices that result from those facts, not necessarily knowing which particular choice will be executed. Even omnipotence does not preclude allowing choices to be made.

Another way to think about it is omniscience is the infinite knowledge of what can happen in infinite choices in the face of infinite possibilities. Not merely knowing the path of a single unchanging thread through existence. The latter is a pretty weak knowledge, the former is infinitely powerful. If you were choosing your God, which would you choose?


Actually, if God is omniscient, then that means he knows everything... everything including all the possible facts, outcomes of choices AND choices before they are made
post #24 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cato988

Actually, if God is omniscient, then that means he knows everything... everything including all the possible facts, outcomes of choices AND choices before they are made

That's my point.

Free will is available because the puny mortals can only take one of the many paths at each particular decision point. Just because the omniscient god knows the outcome of all the possible choices doesn't compel the mortals choice in any way.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #25 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro

That's just a jargon filled non-statement. . . Theories of non-casuality are merely indicators that we haven't got the theory right yet.

Philosophers have always thrived on jargon. It's just that now the concepts require a knowledge of higher math. Blame progress -- it has been a long time since the study of humanities alone has been able to provide any insight towards nature. You think that non-causality is an indicator that our math isn't right, but I argue that the math is right, and that philosophy is flawed. The understanding of our reality is flawed. Consider the options. What has a greater chance of being the fool: the abstract understanding of math, or the metaphysical ramblings of some Greek guy, 2300 years ago? As we probe deeper into the universe, our understanding of it is bound to change. Clinging to a classical perception of reality is just plain foolish.

The fact that our observable reality appears to be filled with an infinite number of particles indicates undeniably that greater reality contains an infinite amount of interacting, unbounded signals. I'll spare you the gritty details, but when you pinch someone to provoke a reaction, you are merely noticing what's part of an extreme subset of observable reality. You are part of a system that is so-called wide-sense stationary, even though the true signal makeup may be very non-causal at the narrow-sense. I'm sorry, but true causality doesn't exist outside of idealized calculations and the minds of people who are wasting their time searching for greater meaning. Greater reality is beyond us, for sure, but it's easy enough to disprove that it's causal.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #26 of 59
Hiro:

Quote:
Not at all. Omniscient means knowing all the possible facts and all the possible outcomes of choices that result from those facts, not necessarily knowing which particular choice will be executed. Even omnipotence does not preclude allowing choices to be made.

All you are doing there is pushing the question back and claiming it is answered. Even if you have choices within the framework of predestiny, you do not have any choices that were not already determined. Hence: You do not have free will.

It is the same trap people attempting to find an argument for the origin of all things do, they just retreat.
"How did life on Earth begin?"
- "Perhaps aliens fertilized it."
"How did life on those alien planets begin?"
- "Uh... other aliens?"

Quote:
Another way to think about it is omniscience is the infinite knowledge of what can happen in infinite choices in the face of infinite possibilities. Not merely knowing the path of a single unchanging thread through existence. The latter is a pretty weak knowledge, the former is infinitely powerful.

When determining whether or not someone has "all" of something, the relative size or scope of that something is not the question, only the amount of that something that the subject possesses. This is not a discussion of the splendor and majesty of god, it is a discussion about the possibility of free will with an omniscient creator god.


Splinemodel:

Quote:
Clinging to a classical perception of reality is just plain foolish.

I agree.
Why, again, are we discussing a notion so primitive and superstitious as a god?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #27 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel

What has a greater chance of being the fool: the abstract understanding of math, or the metaphysical ramblings of some Greek guy, 2300 years ago? As we probe deeper into the universe, our understanding of it is bound to change. Clinging to a classical perception of reality is just plain foolish.

Heh. And to insist that there must be something beyond the flawed metaphysical apprehension of the world is, of course, an insistence upon metaphysics.

Damn you, Plato!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #28 of 59
Where the hell is dmz at a time like this?

I figure we could fit evolution in here somehow with him playing.
post #29 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ

Where the hell is dmz at a time like this?

I figure we could fit evolution in here somehow with him playing.

This discussion will inevitably get to the Cartesian split of cogito, ergo sum soon enough, and then DMZ will come in with his anti-Cartesian stuff.

Personally, I'm tempted to dig out my copy of Milton's De Doctrina Christiana and just paste big chunks of it here.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #30 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cato988

Actually, if God is omniscient, then that means he knows everything... everything including all the possible facts, outcomes of choices AND choices before they are made

It means he knows everything knowable, since that's the definition of omniscience. If free will existed, the future of his creations' minds would be uknowable, but he could still be considered omniscience.
post #31 of 59
I think the idea is that god has foreknowledge of what choice you'll ultimately make, but it's still up to you.
post #32 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ

I think the idea is that god has foreknowledge of what choice you'll ultimately make, but it's still up to you.

Actually, it means that God has foreknowledge of the choice you'll make AND that he won't actively influence that choice. He'll just watch you make it. Sort of like watching people guess numbers on Deal or No Deal.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #33 of 59
Right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

Even if you have choices within the framework of predestiny, you do not have any choices that were not already determined. Hence: You do not have free will.

I think the key assumption you're missing is that God exists outside of time.

It's a silly little technicality that makes no rational scientific sense, but it's kinda a logical justification if you buy into a host of other assumptions. Your actions are "predestined" in a way because God, existing outside of time, has foreknowledge of what you'll do.

Or something like that.
post #34 of 59
ShawnJ:

Quote:
I think the idea is that god has foreknowledge of what choice you'll ultimately make, but it's still up to you.

How can it be "up to me" when it was established before I was even born? What you are asserting is that an omniscient creator god makes himself forget and is subsequently surprised when I do something that he already knew I did before he made himself forget.

You are missing the "creator" part of the god. A "creator" god created everything, then that includes me (everything about me) and the world (everything about the world), i.e. - all factors that influence decision-making and all situations in which decisions are made.

Quote:
I think the key assumption you're missing is that God exists outside of time.

That sentence does not mean anything at all. If God exists outside of time, then all knowledge has always (from our time-bound perspective) been his.

If God, at any point, does not know everything, then he is no longer omniscient and no longer qualifies for this discussion.
If there is anything that was not created by god, then he is not the ultimate creator and he, again, does not qualify for this discussion.

People seem so eager to claim these mutually exclusive concepts (omniscient creator god & free will), either because they seem intellectually comfortable (though unsustainable) and/or because of the fear of moral breakdown without them. Why cling so desperately to something that makes no sense?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #35 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

ShawnJ:
People seem so eager to claim these mutually exclusive concepts (omniscient creator god & free will), either because they seem intellectually comfortable (though unsustainable) and/or because of the fear of moral breakdown without them. Why cling so desperately to something that makes no sense?

Gröverat: I think the issue is that, yes, an omniscient God knows that Eve will be tempted and eat the apple, but that God takes no active part in affecting her behavior. Is that a cop-out? Sure. It doesn't make any sense. But that's the answer.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #36 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

How can it be "up to me" when it was established before I was even born?

It wasn't established to human knowledge-- only to God.

We're still playing by the physical rules of the universe while an omnipotent, omniscient God knows everything past, present, and future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

What you are asserting is that an omniscient creator god makes himself forget and is subsequently surprised when I do something that he already knew I did before he made himself forget.

God is not "surprised" by anything. He has foreknowledge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

You are missing the "creator" part of the god. A "creator" god created everything, then that includes me (everything about me) and the world (everything about the world), i.e. - all factors that influence decision-making and all situations in which decisions are made.

You're forgetting that God leaves humans to their own affairs.

He does that because he loves us.

Free will, baby!

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

That sentence does not mean anything at all.

You have to buy into the assumptions that God is omnipotent and omniscient.

If he's those things, then surely God isn't constrained by the physical laws of the universe such as space and time.

He must exist outside of time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

If God exists outside of time, then all knowledge has always (from our time-bound perspective) been his.

That's it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

If God, at any point, does not know everything, then he is no longer omniscient and no longer qualifies for this discussion.

Right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

If there is anything that was not created by god, then he is not the ultimate creator and he, again, does not qualify for this discussion.

Right. But don't forget to square that with free will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

People seem so eager to claim these mutually exclusive concepts (omniscient creator god & free will), either because they seem intellectually comfortable (though unsustainable) and/or because of the fear of moral breakdown without them. Why cling so desperately to something that makes no sense?

You're not exactly being fair here in your analysis.

I don't buy into the assumptions either, but if you do then theologically it's possible to be consistent.
post #37 of 59
I would argue that there doesn't even need to be a God to not have free-will. I believe we are purely bound by the environment we're brought up in. Although the 'illusion' of free-will will influence the destination of our actions.
post #38 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

Hiro:
All you are doing there is pushing the question back and claiming it is answered. Even if you have choices within the framework of predestiny, you do not have any choices that were not already determined. Hence: You do not have free will.

It is the same trap people attempting to find an argument for the origin of all things do, they just retreat.
"How did life on Earth begin?"
- "Perhaps aliens fertilized it."
"How did life on those alien planets begin?"
- "Uh... other aliens?"



When determining whether or not someone has "all" of something, the relative size or scope of that something is not the question, only the amount of that something that the subject possesses. This is not a discussion of the splendor and majesty of god, it is a discussion about the possibility of free will with an omniscient creator god.

No, not pushing anything back. Your stance has a scope problem with the word "determined". A valid argument cannot inject artificial limits partway into the discussion to make itself look good.

Nothing is determined about which course of action will be followed, onmiscience just knows all the possibilities of what may happen "IF" a certain course of action is followed. Destiny, or the lack thereof - free will, is tied to the unfettered choice of the chooser who does not know the outcomes on the other side of the choice with perfect certainty. The chooser has free-will to choose a path, the omniscient observer merely observes, not compels.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #39 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro

dree will, is tied to the unfettered choice of the chooser who does not know the outcomes on the other side of the choice with perfect certainty. The chooser has free-will to choose a path, the omniscient observer merely observes, not compels.

There it is.
post #40 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter

Gröverat: I think the issue is that, yes, an omniscient God knows that Eve will be tempted and eat the apple, but that God takes no active part in affecting her behavior. Is that a cop-out? Sure. It doesn't make any sense. But that's the answer.

It's not a cop-out at all, but it's also not the case that God knows Eve will eat the apple. He knows Eve will be sorely tempted, and he knows what will happen if she does (amongst all the other things that may happen). But that is a long shot from knowing with certainty that she will eat the apple.
.
Reply
.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AppleOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Predestination vs. Freewill